Re: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?

2010-06-03 Thread Ira Rosen
Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote on 02/06/2010 06:13:36 PM: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote: Ulrich Weigand wrote: So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not macros, right? If so, can reviewers please take care to reject

Re: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?

2010-06-03 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Ira Rosen i...@il.ibm.com wrote: Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote on 02/06/2010 06:13:36 PM: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote: Ulrich Weigand wrote: So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not

Re: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?

2010-06-03 Thread Ira Rosen
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote on 03/06/2010 02:00:00 PM: tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_COND_TAKEN_BRANCH_COST tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_COND_NOT_TAKEN_BRANCH_COST tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_SCALAR_STMT_COST tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_SCALAR_LOAD_COST

Re: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?

2010-06-03 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Ira Rosen i...@il.ibm.com wrote: Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote on 03/06/2010 02:00:00 PM: tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_COND_TAKEN_BRANCH_COST tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_COND_NOT_TAKEN_BRANCH_COST tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef

Re: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?

2010-06-02 Thread Steven Bosscher
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote: Ulrich Weigand wrote: So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not macros, right? If so, can reviewers please take care to reject patches that introduce new macros? I don't know to which extent this is a

Re: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?

2010-05-28 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 05/26/2010 07:03 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: This is the reason why we implemented TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_KEYWORDS as macro (note that all the other address-space related back-end callbacks were already implemented as hooks to begin with). One nice cleanup would be to merge the per-address-space

Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?

2010-05-26 Thread Steven Bosscher
Hello, Just yesterday alone, I found two target *macros* introduced in 2008/2009: TARGET_ENUM_VA_LIST, introduced by: 2008-07-06 Kai Tietz kai dot tietz at onevision dot com * config/i386/i386.h (TARGET_ENUM_VA_LIST): New. * doc/tm.texi (TARGET_FN_ABI_VA_LIST): New.

Re: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?

2010-05-26 Thread Ulrich Weigand
Steven Bosscher wrote: So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not macros, right? If so, can reviewers please take care to reject patches that introduce new macros? I don't know to which extent this is a formal goal these days, but I personally agree that it would be nice to eliminate

Re: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?

2010-05-26 Thread Mark Mitchell
Ulrich Weigand wrote: So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not macros, right? If so, can reviewers please take care to reject patches that introduce new macros? I don't know to which extent this is a formal goal these days, but I personally agree that it would be nice to

Re: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?

2010-05-26 Thread Michael Meissner
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:16:22AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: Ulrich Weigand wrote: So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not macros, right? If so, can reviewers please take care to reject patches that introduce new macros? I don't know to which extent this is a formal goal