Sounds a good idea to me, here is the list I'm using: #include "params.h" #include "flags.h" #include "tree.h" #include "tree-pass.h" #include "basic-block.h" #include "function.h" #include "hash-table.h" #include "tree-ssa-alias.h" #include "tree-cfg.h" #include "tree-ssa-operands.h" #include "tree-inline.h" #include "gimple-expr.h" #include "is-a.h" #include "gimple.h" #include "tree-phinodes.h" #include "gimple-iterator.h" #include "gimple-ssa.h" #include "ssa-iterators.h" #include "tree-into-ssa.h" #include "cfgloop.h" #include "context.h"
However, it does not automatically solve the missing header file issue in Makefile, any idea to solve this problem? - Joey On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com> wrote: > During the re-architecture session at Cauldron, I mentioned the possibility > of introducing a plugin-headers.h. > > This would be a file which plugins could use which would protect them > somewhat from header file restructuring. The idea is that it includes all > the common things plugins need, (like gimple.h, rtl.h, most-of-the-world.h, > etc etc),. When header files are restructured, that file would also be > adjusted so that the correct include order is still maintained. This could > also give plugins a little more stability across releases since header files > do come and go.. > > I am about to start another round of flattening and shuffling, so figured > this might be a good time to introduce it. Any of you plugin users have a > list of includes you want to see in it, or better yet, provide me with a > plugin-headers.h? ( Out of curiosity, is there a reason gcc-plugins.h > doesn't include a pile of these common things? or is that simply to avoid > bringing in the world?) Or would you rather just continue to deal with the > pain of header file name changing/content shuffling? or is there a > different solution proposal? > > > Andrew
