* Split c-common.c? @ 2016-09-26 13:34 Marek Polacek 2016-09-26 13:38 ` Jakub Jelinek 2016-09-27 23:10 ` Joseph Myers 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Marek Polacek @ 2016-09-26 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GCC Patches, Jason Merrill, Joseph Myers 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? Marek ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Split c-common.c? 2016-09-26 13:34 Split c-common.c? Marek Polacek @ 2016-09-26 13:38 ` Jakub Jelinek 2016-09-26 13:42 ` Marek Polacek 2016-09-27 23:10 ` Joseph Myers 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2016-09-26 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marek Polacek; +Cc: GCC Patches, Jason Merrill, Joseph Myers 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? Jakub ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Split c-common.c? 2016-09-26 13:38 ` Jakub Jelinek @ 2016-09-26 13:42 ` Marek Polacek 2016-09-26 15:15 ` Jeff Law 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Marek Polacek @ 2016-09-26 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: GCC Patches, Jason Merrill, Joseph Myers 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Split c-common.c? 2016-09-26 13:42 ` Marek Polacek @ 2016-09-26 15:15 ` Jeff Law 2016-09-27 15:10 ` Jason Merrill 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Jeff Law @ 2016-09-26 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marek Polacek, Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: GCC Patches, Jason Merrill, Joseph Myers On 09/26/2016 07:38 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: > 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. Works for me. jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Split c-common.c? 2016-09-26 15:15 ` Jeff Law @ 2016-09-27 15:10 ` Jason Merrill 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Jason Merrill @ 2016-09-27 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Law; +Cc: Marek Polacek, Jakub Jelinek, GCC Patches, Joseph Myers Sure. On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: > On 09/26/2016 07:38 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: >> >> 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. > > Works for me. > > jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Split c-common.c? 2016-09-26 13:34 Split c-common.c? Marek Polacek 2016-09-26 13:38 ` Jakub Jelinek @ 2016-09-27 23:10 ` Joseph Myers 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Joseph Myers @ 2016-09-27 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marek Polacek; +Cc: GCC Patches, Jason Merrill On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, 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? If you have a logical division of c-common.c into different areas of functionality, splitting them into separate files makes sense. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-09-27 22:44 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-09-26 13:34 Split c-common.c? Marek Polacek 2016-09-26 13:38 ` Jakub Jelinek 2016-09-26 13:42 ` Marek Polacek 2016-09-26 15:15 ` Jeff Law 2016-09-27 15:10 ` Jason Merrill 2016-09-27 23:10 ` Joseph Myers
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).