From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=uc+a=4A=gmail.com=richard.guenther@sourceware.org>
Received: from mail-lf1-x12b.google.com (mail-lf1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12b])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 314D33858D3C
	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri,  2 Dec 2022 07:44:05 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 314D33858D3C
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com
Received: by mail-lf1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id b3so6185978lfv.2
        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 01 Dec 2022 23:44:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
        h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
         :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
        bh=kP0L2DICgg4sww59NhB+2hE3EAds0yXCF3rWRqRdtPc=;
        b=b4utfCBSuVcH6A80RB5+nzJBtD0kDqEG0JxPC2t1DO05JTsLvnAYty9Y+5mXLP1oRm
         Zx7IsR9Ft1nB0c1nXq7gXUAmuOwzOvoBqRJHvLaAsGKaLIxzOLN/2L+R4gL5yBJB2fXM
         h9tqI/KvCzYeb432e+07sz/HABux1juaFyXbnskoBiqZ0gsNHV+TCbYicG/4vxS7ir6W
         Kx8q0fNy5NjpoUCgW6phhluMnwX5Rcuz2SedABFYtSFzd37tJbLXayWdDA4CXTvKeDvq
         RsxPLG5BVLuqkLALQKcRrR2z0qPlR4hk+9CQYDO/GqCXknKm9W41tF/sRZkO1BdnAdDb
         IANg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
        h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
         :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id
         :reply-to;
        bh=kP0L2DICgg4sww59NhB+2hE3EAds0yXCF3rWRqRdtPc=;
        b=ictrxMjbnIac4W2mAWdYBra4bBwMmMLHR/iYvxyIWHbJK1k8TNwwkVEbKyNlC8aFww
         7Ml24gUrE/8M3Ms4ocKBJegFr3mg4V4xovk2gAI3B+Oy9OeimBzK3Cqpxm/C6ET1TIne
         ovLC/bRfeD5Y7ys4eTHqG0tIIXQTRTA5CqGSmxe5JwuQCbdY+4UuDBPypGaA9zPUvAy+
         tgfPTwDty4m/7aqD+W0bbWgrBVyxLUyUBZHJ7YhkEj37uUNx05TpRPP8z88t1Qlo25Qp
         jEjl9N0c2wr5lKWQzf/Vj5bMGU46RWDEZVht1kZUAF80ruG7mXdZvv5uRlNJ0NdECObH
         3rtA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pmkx8oN/yQ6tqilt5qAvWEK/2ddeP6mnav6gJmRYbzjXo1KPJdz
	RN0FA+bxxMNFQa5Yd/ce/pwr+3u2YGZMu/x1Nhc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7T52zkV4ZZnmtwQf3ZKi/E0ZtXg9vHgdgEg2wzYOZd7vDqhXh2oXzeXLJm6Y+FNw72cbvhZbSfB0qCthjuvEo=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:398f:b0:4b1:39c2:c675 with SMTP id
 j15-20020a056512398f00b004b139c2c675mr22192409lfu.448.1669967043559; Thu, 01
 Dec 2022 23:44:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEYL+X_ta9=7wKrWZT7TArBiOi79S2WzTtsqOwueUf8Vm2cjvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8FF347A1-0569-4A57-B0AE-9760A70AA010@gmail.com> <CAEYL+X9rNbOHanPNrYmtGHXMD2NhCWRiyTXkzG=YxOPRZBAUvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+=Sn1njXotzb_bkfZOOhd9MDUEqvLwLS2KCVyFsQ4thWwZTtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYL+X_dJfJ4gRjUgKnx3TdaqZEWSRV+GBvS4jYeO4Tntya9tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFiYyc0b9YXc4smF9Vkzqb2qVBiM2DWCnTRj7P6FYy5RHYhq4Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAEYL+X9mQNwWUr1k8g2LTxG3_NfgMFa-fz3NMcVNeMqARpSv1w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEYL+X9mQNwWUr1k8g2LTxG3_NfgMFa-fz3NMcVNeMqARpSv1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 08:43:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc1=y7iy-RpBsq301R_72kAeY=En4sUrWTLHqxULTz0fQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/56] Revert "Move void_list_node init to common code". (8ff2a92a0450243e52d3299a13b30f208bafa7e0)
To: Zopolis0 <creatorsmithmdt@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>

On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 1:23 AM Zopolis0 <creatorsmithmdt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But that looks like the correct thing to do.
>
> It's not. The patch I reverted changes it so that no matter what,
> void_list_node = build_tree_list (NULL_TREE, void_type_node);.
>
> Before, each front-end set it in their own way, but they all set it
> via void_list_node = build_tree_list (NULL_TREE, void_type_node); or a
> synonym anyway. So while the patch made sense in a java-free context,
> given that java sets it a different way, I can't see a world in which
> this commit stays active and Java works, unless we find a way to set
> it in tree.cc for every language except Java.

The middle-end expects it to be this way, it's not correct for a frontend
to define it in other ways.  That means you need to try to understand
_why_ the frontend isn't happy with the middle-ends definition.

How does Java build end_params_node?

Richard.