From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 779 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2019 20:50:28 -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 500 invoked by uid 89); 12 Mar 2019 20:50:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*r:906, H*r:a17 X-HELO: mail-ed1-f54.google.com Received: from mail-ed1-f54.google.com (HELO mail-ed1-f54.google.com) (209.85.208.54) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:50:27 +0000 Received: by mail-ed1-f54.google.com with SMTP id p27so3515474edc.6 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 13:50:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gwmail-gwu-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=y+rXRbxhj7M8AmRweDr0an8zmkKVahR8VhyJgG7Hbew=; b=kMPV8qgcQpZUNJIC0NyGR/mu3J+R4rl0u4tOQTH3RHtCM/Ul48WaL6c6A1jSSDhBk2 SiVqL16GyUtZjsW4/5OoqhPLDOkscOXnof0h3NwuXc0jn2q9/PxK6XBQ2bpSOzgqGfd0 wpKW3QoGJ9EOw+Ti0COmN3nUeyx1TlxdnD8q7K6P/eOmQPjQCQEKGl5MYcoIriN5jxmk ncyfN/HqQhCIrObamT+xT2bGdqCaWw8/hl2aQCKatvKjn2Kc1SNC3dmdp6Qyr740/zQj MuI6EMo5FH8H5NnGjErM17n6R0mEZi/4SaA1XLSrDXLdpYZ8CH+2t4wnMzQZCIcL61Zr ol1A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a17:906:3602:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 13:50:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Eric Gallager Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] split of i386.c To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=C5=A1ka?= Cc: GCC Development , =?UTF-8?B?SmFuIEh1YmnEjWth?= , Uros Bizjak , "H.J. Lu" , Jakub Jelinek Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-03/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 On 3/12/19, Martin Li=C5=A1ka 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? > > Thanks, > Martin > I'm not a maintainer, but just as an onlooker I highly support this move; i386.c is way too long as it is. 7 pieces sounds like a good number of new files to split it into, too. Eric