* 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).