On 09/05/2013 09:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com> wrote:
Now that tree.h is split in two, there are some follow up things that will
facilitate the deforestation of gimple. I've also thrown in a couple of
structuring issues for good measure.
What are your thoughts on these subjects?
Jumping in from the side I suggest you start de-foresting existing headers
where they say
/* In foobar.c */
...
to simply add a foobar.h with the contents that follow. Bonus points if you
actually verify all definitions from X.c are declaed in X.h (the /* In ... */
annotations are hopelessly out-of-date in some cases).
More bonus points if you avoid pass-xyz.h files but instead move code
useful to multiple passes to more appropriate places. That said, definitely
avoid pass-xyz.h ;)
Richard.
Yes, well that's high on the list too, I just hadnt given it a lot of
thought yet. Yes, thisbis probably the right thing to do. However, The
functions in tree.c that I need would then end up in tree.h... which
isnt good for me :-) we could have a tree-proto.h for just this one
file or something like that. I dont think tree-core is the right place,
but...
Anyway, that would resolve the tree-checking and place to put protoypes
issue just fine. I'd definitely go for the bonus points :-). I also
think a lot of include files are including a lot of crud they dont need
too... In glancing at those 4 .h files that include tree.h, they have
along list of includes, most of which are also included in the .c
files. And many of those have #includes they don't need I bet. I'd
have alook at that on the way through the file too.
Andrew
