From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 124515 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2016 21:29:59 -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 124504 invoked by uid 89); 26 Feb 2016 21:29:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=lovely, editorial, (unknown), website X-HELO: ainaz.pair.com Received: from ainaz.pair.com (HELO ainaz.pair.com) (209.68.2.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:29:57 +0000 Received: from anthias.dhcp.nue.suse.com (nat.nue.novell.com [195.135.221.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C0783F429; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:29:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:29:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: David Malcolm cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [wwwdocs] Add a "Plugin issues" section to the GCC 6 porting guide In-Reply-To: <1455203525.18873.38.camel@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <1455203525.18873.38.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg01856.txt.bz2 Hi David, On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, David Malcolm wrote: > I've (mostly) ported gcc-python-plugin to gcc 6. The attached patch > for the gcc website starts a new "Plugin issues" section, and covers > the biggest issue I ran into (FWIW the suggested compatibility typedef > is the one I committed to gcc-python-plugin). this is lovely, thanks for doing it! Just some small editorial comments; please go ahead and commit after making (or at least considering) them. Index: htdocs/gcc-6/porting_to.html =================================================================== +

"gimple" became a struct, rather than a pointer

Should this be gimple? +Prior to GCC 6, "gimple" meant a pointer to a statement. It was a +typedef aliasing the type struct gimple_statement_base *: Same here. +

"gimple" is now the statement struct itself, not a pointer. +The "gimple" struct is now the base class of the gimple statement class +hierarchy, and throughout gcc every gimple was changed to a ..and here. gcc -> GCC How about "every instance of gimple" ? +(revision +r227941 +was the commit in question). The typedef const_gimple is no more; "is the commit" ? +change. If you aim for compatibility between both gcc 6 and earlier +releases of gcc, it may be cleanest to introduce a compatibility typedef GCC 6 GCC Thank you, Gerald