From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-56351-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 16280 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2002 11:29:49 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16175 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2002 11:29:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO executor.cambridge.redhat.com) (195.224.55.237)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2002 11:29:45 -0000
Received: from cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com (vpn50-3.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.3])
	by executor.cambridge.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 37510ABB17; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:29:40 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from aph@localhost)
	by cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.0) id g6ABTt403126;
	Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:29:55 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com: aph set sender to aph@cambridge.redhat.com using -f
From: Andrew Haley <aph@cambridge.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15660.6835.58381.407065@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 07:32:00 -0000
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
	"java@gcc.gnu.org" <java@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Java inliner
In-Reply-To: <or4rf7j05w.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
References: <15648.40350.493795.623862@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0207011455550.20102-100000@dberlin.org>
	<15648.42609.739440.682415@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>
	<orr8ici2sh.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
	<15659.62226.717520.170250@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>
	<or4rf7j05w.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00440.txt.bz2

Alexandre Oliva writes:
 > On Jul 10, 2002, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
 > 
 > >> I wonder if, instead of duplicating the code from tree-inline.c and
 > >> then modifying it to suit Java, we wouldn't be better off with an
 > >> #if/#else/#endif (hopefully temporary) mess, so as to avoid divergence
 > >> between these files...  
 > 
 > > As I said, I did try but halfway through I abandoned it because it was
 > > too untidy.
 > 
 > Hmm, I hadn't got the impression you had relied on the preprocessor to
 > separate the C/C++-specific bits from the generic/Java ones. 

I had a try, but it was getting rather complex.

 > If you did, and it looked awful, oh well... :-(

Tell you what, I'll diff the two and see if I can come up with a
sensible way to abstract the differences.

Andrew.