From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 111877 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2015 22:43:28 -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 111866 invoked by uid 89); 8 Jul 2015 22:43:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:43:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA2CE3187F0 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:43:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-113-49.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.49]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t68MhPvr023784; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 18:43:25 -0400 Message-ID: <559DA7A5.2050109@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:43:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew MacLeod , gcc-patches Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] Flattening and initial module rebuilding References: <559BD6B3.2080207@redhat.com> <559C50F0.9090807@redhat.com> <559C668C.4050600@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <559C668C.4050600@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg00660.txt.bz2 On 07/07/2015 05:53 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > yes, with a bit of tweaking and enhancement they can be generally > useful. They are all in python. And no one is allowed to make comments > like "OMG thats so inefficient" or "what a horrible way to do that" > :-) My goal was getting things done and sometimes the brute force > approach works great when the machine sare fast enough :_) Works for me... I'm sure Martin S. is cringing at my python scripts right now, so I completely understand. >> It's a bit of a shame that function.h is in backend.h, along with >> predict (which is presumably needed by basic-block/cfg?). >> > > Yeah,once things settle down someone could tweak things more. If I make > the tools available, people can do their own analysis and adjusting. > > function.h provides cfun which is used all over the place..9 backend > header files use it,and a few like gimple.h actually require struct > function to be defined. Right. I suspect that we may want to look at cleaning that up a bit in the future. There's bits in there that are relatively backend specific, some bits that look like front-end things, and cfun which is a context container. Untangling that mess is likely to be painful. > > predict.h is actually required by gimple.h for a few reasons, enum > be_predictor is used in parameter lists and a few inlines use the TAKEN, > NOT_TAKEN macros > Its also needed by cfghooks.h, and betwen those 2 files, its just needed > by a very good chunk of the backend. .. 219 of the 263 files which > include backend.h need it. > We could move the 2 enums and TAKEN/NOT_TAKEN to coretypes or something > like that and it would probably cut the requirements for it by a *lot*. Might be something for a follow-up (moving the enums). Jeff