From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7391 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2011 13:19:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 7369 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Mar 2011 13:19:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:18:58 +0000 Received: (qmail 18890 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2011 13:18:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (froydnj@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 11 Mar 2011 13:18:56 -0000 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:19:00 -0000 From: Nathan Froyd To: Richard Guenther Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, fortran@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/18] introduce block_chainon and use BLOCK_CHAIN more Message-ID: <20110311131856.GG23686@codesourcery.com> References: <1299817406-16745-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com> <1299817406-16745-18-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00599.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 02:15:20PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote: > > BLOCKs have a TREE_CHAIN and a TREE_TYPE; TREE_TYPE is useless for > > blocks, but we can't remove TREE_TYPE without also removing TREE_CHAIN. > > This patch lays the groundwork to do just that.  It changes places that > > use chainon on BLOCKs to use block_chainon, which works identically to > > chainon except it uses BLOCK_CHAIN.  And it fixes up a few places that > > used TREE_CHAIN when they meant BLOCK_CHAIN. > > The middle-end parts are ok. Any particular reason why you choose > function.[ch] for block_chainon and not tree.[ch]? Because block_nreverse was already in function.[ch]. I'm not particularly wedded to the location and can move it if you like (I did spend some time looking through tree.[ch] before rgrep'ing and remembering that block_nreverse was in a funny location...). -Nathan