On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com> wrote: >> ok, so to dwell on header file cleanup. When creating new header files for >> say, tree-ssa-ter.h, what other include files should we make assumptions >> have already been included... or should we make none? >> For instance, the header files tree-ssa-ter.h would require system.h, >> bitmap.h, tree-ssa-live.h, and gimple.h (soon to be gimple-core.h I hope :-) >> to parse the prototypes > > Why bitmap.h? bitmap is in coretypes.h. > > Anyway, a little more side-stepping: on my wishlist is making the > various data types (sbitmap, bitmap, sparseset, etc.) independent of > gcc headers as much as possible, and having a single header, gccadt.h > say, that provides most/all generic data structures (e.g. also > including hash tables).
Yeah, and we could move all the files into a lib/ subdirectory (well, or make them part of libiberty). >> Of course, trimming the .c file include list with some intelligence would >> help minimize this, but not completely eliminate it. > > As you may have noticed, I tried trimming the #include lists in many > .c files last year. It's a hard but worthwhile job: You find some > headers have to be included before others, or some headers are used by > some .c file but they don't #include it. Instead they receive it > through an #include in some .h file but nothing defined directly, i.e. > not via #include, is used in the .c file. > > >> thats just an example, I don't think we need a tree-ssa-ter.h. There are >> only 3 exported functions. 2 are used exclusively in tree-outof-ssa.c and >> one is used in expr.c (a reuse of the is_replaceable_p function.) >> The 2 that are exclusive to tree-out-ssa.c could simple have the prototypes >> in tree-outof-ssa.c, That seems like the best thing to do for single >> client's? > > Not really. It's a single client now, but if it's an exported > interface of some kind, then why should its use stay limited to a > single client? > > Either some function is exported and therefore should have a prototype > in a .h file, or something is local to a file and no prototype is > necessary (in most cases anyway). > > >> The other function could be moved from tree-ssa-ter.c to expr.c, and the >> prototype exported in expr.h and used in tree-ssa-ter.c > > Makes sense. > > Ciao! > Steven
