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 these days, but I > > personally agree that it would be nice to eliminate macros. > > Yes, the (informally agreed) policy is to have hooks, not macros. There > may be situations where that is technically impossible, but I'd expect > those to be very rare.
For the target address space stuff, it is to the __ea keyword. You don't want a target hook that is called on every identifier, but instead you want a target hook that is called in c_parse_init (in c-parser.c) and init_reswords (in cp/lex.c) to set up the keywords. The target hook would have to duplicate the functionality of all of the setup that c_parse_init and init_reswords do, particularly if they have different semantics. -- Michael Meissner, IBM Until June 14: 4 Technology Place Drive, MS 2203A, Westford, MA, 01886, USA After June 14: 5 Technology Place Drive, MS 2757, Westford, MA 01886, USA meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
