Steven Bosscher wrote: > So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not macros, right? If > so, can reviewers please take care to reject patches that introduce > new macros?
I don't know to which extent this is a formal goal these days, but I personally agree that it would be nice to eliminate macros. However, there are (or at least, used to be) some areas where using hooks is a bit difficult, in particular where interactions between the back-end and one particular front-end (as opposed to common code) are concerned. This is the reason why we implemented TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_KEYWORDS as macro (note that all the other address-space related back-end callbacks were already implemented as hooks to begin with). > Kai already said on IRC last night that he can hookize > TARGET_ENUM_VA_LIST. Could the folks who introduced > TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_KEYWORDS please do the same? I'll have a look. What is the preferred solution these days for hooks between the C front-end and a back-end? targetcm? (Why is there both targetcm and targetm.c ?) Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com
