From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 74256 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2016 13:38:38 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 74230 invoked by uid 89); 26 Sep 2016 13:38:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:38:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F999A077A; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:38:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-204-20.brq.redhat.com [10.40.204.20]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u8QDcWTA006452 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 09:38:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:42:00 -0000 From: Marek Polacek To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: GCC Patches , Jason Merrill , Joseph Myers Subject: Re: Split c-common.c? Message-ID: <20160926133831.GJ3223@redhat.com> References: <20160926132207.GI3223@redhat.com> <20160926132628.GA7282@tucnak.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160926132628.GA7282@tucnak.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg01831.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 03:26:28PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 03:22:08PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > > Before I spend time on this, I wanted to check if you consider this a good > > idea. Since c-common.c has grown a lot and is quite large now, I think we > > might split it into c-warn.c, where various warning routines would go. What do > > you think? > > Perhaps c-attribs.c for the attribute handling stuff too? Yeah. The way I envision c-common.c is to contain shared c-family routines such as c_common_type_for_*, c_save_expr, max_align_t_align, and similar, but the warnings/diagnostics might use their own file. Marek