On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> Or you move the macros depending on NO_DOLLARS_IN_LABELS
> to tm.h itself ...
I'm dubious about that for the front-end macros, but in some cases it may
indeed make sense to move a macro that depends on target macros, rather
than really being one itse
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/15/2013 08:31 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, though this has interesting effects on includes that do stuff like
>>>
>>> #ifdef NO_DOLLARS_IN_LABELS
>>> ...
>>>
>>> where the pre
On 11/15/2013 08:31 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
Yeah, though this has interesting effects on includes that do stuff like
#ifdef NO_DOLLARS_IN_LABELS
...
where the presence of this definition depends on another header file
and thus the ultimate outcome
On 11/15/2013 08:16 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
btw, I ran tm.h through the include removal script for the c family front end
files... The attached patch compiles on x64 and removes 37 includes from the
front end files those are just the extraneous
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> Yeah, though this has interesting effects on includes that do stuff like
>
> #ifdef NO_DOLLARS_IN_LABELS
> ...
>
> where the presence of this definition depends on another header file
> and thus the ultimate outcome in your .c file depends on include
On 11/15/2013 05:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/14/2013 05:16 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
This patch contains the mechanical side-effects from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg0166
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 05:16 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >
> > > This patch contains the mechanical side-effects from
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01663.html
> > There are rather a lot of "Inc
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 05:16 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>>> This patch contains the mechanical side-effects from
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01663.html
>>
>> There are rather a l
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 05:16 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>>> This patch contains the mechanical side-effects from
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01663.html
>>
>> There are rather a l
On 11/14/2013 05:16 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
This patch contains the mechanical side-effects from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01663.html
There are rather a lot of "Include tm.h" changes here - especially in
front ends, where we've tr
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
> These are due to builtins.h. The structs defined in there need
> FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER. This means that we have parts of builtins.h
> that are OK for FEs and others that aren't. This is not good.
>
> The best alternative for this change is to leave t
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> This patch contains the mechanical side-effects from
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01663.html
>
> There are rather a lot of "Include tm.h" changes here - especially in
> front
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
> This patch contains the mechanical side-effects from
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01663.html
There are rather a lot of "Include tm.h" changes here - especially in
front ends, where we've tried to eliminate tm.h calls, and put comments
13 matches
Mail list logo