From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 44453 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2019 12:55:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 44442 invoked by uid 89); 13 Mar 2019 12:55:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit 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 ESMTP; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:55:06 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A555112B2D; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:55:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ovpn-117-190.phx2.redhat.com (ovpn-117-190.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.117.190]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1EEB2619B; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:55:04 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1552481704.18132.26.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] split of i386.c From: David Malcolm To: Martin =?UTF-8?Q?Li=C5=A1ka?= , GCC Development Cc: Jan =?UTF-8?Q?Hubi=C4=8Dka?= , Uros Bizjak , "H.J. Lu" , Jakub Jelinek Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-03/txt/msg00108.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 16:08 +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > Hi. > > I've thinking about the file split about quite some time, mainly > in context of PR84402. I would like to discuss if it's fine for > maintainers of the target to make such split and into which logical > components can the file be split? > > I'm suggesting something like: > - option-related and attribute-related stuff (i386-options.c - as > seen in patch) > - built-in related functions > - expansion/gen functions - still quite of lot of functions, would > make > sense to split into: > - scalar > - vector > - prologue/epilogue, GOT, PLT, symbol emission > - misc extensions like STV, TLS, CET, retpolines, multiversioning, .. > - helpers - commonly used functions, print_reg, ix86_print_operand, > .. > > I am volunteering to make the split, hopefully early in the next > stage1. > > Thoughts? IIRC we had a policy that new C++ source files (as opposed to tests) get a .cc extension, rather than .c I'm not sure if that applies in the case of a split like this one. Dave