> You probably can get away with forward declaring the TargetSubtarget > class instead of #including here.
Good catch. Will try that. > If you're going to do this, why not just get rid of Subtarget > altogether and just use BaseSubtarget? It can be set to 0 for targets > that don't use it. Then again, it might not be a bad idea to use > virtual getter/setters here. It already has virtual functions, and > you're calling virtual functions through this pointer. So... :-) The problem with using only BaseSubtarget is that X86Subtarget adds a lot of methods to the base implementation. Because of this the X86 code really expects to see a pointer to the X86Subtarget and not TargetSubtarget. I.E., a downcast is needed. > -bw > _______________________________________________ > llvm-commits mailing list > llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits > Thanks, -- Rafael Avila de Espindola Google Ireland Ltd. Gordon House Barrow Street Dublin 4 Ireland Registered in Dublin, Ireland Registration Number: 368047 _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
