On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com> wrote: > this patch consolidates tree-ssa-loop*.c files with new .h files as required > (8 in total) > > A number of the prototypes were in tree-flow.h, but there were also a few in > cfgloop.h. tree-ssa-loop.h was created to contain a couple of common > structs and act as the gathering file for any generally applicable > tree-ssa-loop includes. tree-flow.h includes this file for now. > > There is a bit of a criss-cross mess between the cfg-* and tree-ssa-loop* > routines, but I'm not touching that for now. Some of that might have to get > resolved when I try to remove tree-flow.h as a standard include file from > the .c files.. we'll see. > > In particular, tree-ssa-loop-niter.h exports a lot of more generally used > routines. loop-iv.c, loop-unroll.c and loop-unswitch.c needed to include it. > > A few routines werent referenced outside their file so I made those static, > and there was one routine stmt_invariant_in_loop_p wich was actually unused. > > bootstraps on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and passes with no new regressions. > OK?
+ enum tree_code cmp; + }; + + #include "tree-ssa-loop-im.h" + #include "tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.h" what's the particular reason to not do includes first? That looks really odd (and maybe rather than doing that these includes should be done elsewhere, like in .c files or in a header that includes tree-ssa-loop.h). You seem to export things like movement_possibility that are not used outside of tree-ssa-loop-im.c (in my tree at least). Other than that the single reason we have to have all these exports is that loop passes have their pass structures and gate / entries defined in tree-ssa-loop.c instead of in the files the passes reside. Consider changing that as a preparatory patch - it should cut down the number of needed new .h files. Richard. > Andrew >
