From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4370 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2007 20:06:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 4359 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2007 20:06:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:06:30 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lAFK6SeR016382; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:06:28 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lAFK6RER011626; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:06:28 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ton.yyz.redhat.com [10.15.16.15]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lAFK6LOK015483; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:06:22 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 4BAB2508496; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:41:07 -0700 (MST) To: Diego Novillo Cc: Gcc Patch List Subject: Re: Patch: make cfun a non-lvalue References: <473CA1E5.4000909@google.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com X-Attribution: Tom Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:13:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <473CA1E5.4000909@google.com> (Diego Novillo's message of "Thu\, 15 Nov 2007 14\:45\:41 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00873.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Diego" == Diego Novillo writes: Diego> Tom Tromey wrote: >> * tree-parloops.c (create_loop_fn): Use set_cfun. >> * gengtype.c (open_base_files): Emit #undef cfun. >> * ipa-struct-reorg.c (do_reorg_1): Use set_cfun. >> * function.h (cfun): New define. >> * function.c: Undefine cfun. Diego> There are other places that set 'cfun', though. IIRC, tree-inline.c Diego> and omp-low.c do. I don't see those in my tree. Maybe those assignments were removed at some point? Also, this patch has survived multiple bootstraps, which would have caught any assignments -- that's how I found the ones I fixed. Diego> Patch is OK otherwise. I'll check it in shortly, thanks. Tom