Re: [patch] The remainder of tree-flow.h refactored.

2013-10-10 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > On 10/09/2013 02:18 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: >> >> On 10/09/2013 02:15 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: >>> >>> >>> Fair enough. I'll adjust... the front end files which use that routine >>> will just have to include gimplify.h >>> >> Unless ma

Re: [patch] The remainder of tree-flow.h refactored.

2013-10-09 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On 10/09/2013 02:18 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: On 10/09/2013 02:15 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: Fair enough. I'll adjust... the front end files which use that routine will just have to include gimplify.h Unless maybe we should expand the gimplify module to have a gimplfy-fe.[ch] which includ

Re: [patch] The remainder of tree-flow.h refactored.

2013-10-09 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On 10/09/2013 02:15 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: On 10/09/2013 01:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote: Andrew MacLeod wrote: On 10/08/2013 06:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote: unvisit_body isn't generic enough to warrant moving out of gimplify.c (the only user). Bah, now I remember.. so there *are* other us

Re: [patch] The remainder of tree-flow.h refactored.

2013-10-09 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On 10/09/2013 01:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote: Andrew MacLeod wrote: On 10/08/2013 06:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote: unvisit_body isn't generic enough to warrant moving out of gimplify.c (the only user). Bah, now I remember.. so there *are* other users.. this routine is called from various front

Re: [patch] The remainder of tree-flow.h refactored.

2013-10-09 Thread Richard Biener
Andrew MacLeod wrote: >On 10/08/2013 06:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> unvisit_body isn't generic enough to warrant moving out of gimplify.c >> (the only user). > >Bah, now I remember.. so there *are* other users.. this routine is >called from various front ends.. fortran, c-family and cp all

Re: [patch] The remainder of tree-flow.h refactored.

2013-10-09 Thread Diego Novillo
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > bootstraps on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, regressions test are still running. > OK? Sure.

Re: [patch] The remainder of tree-flow.h refactored.

2013-10-09 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On 10/08/2013 06:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote: unvisit_body isn't generic enough to warrant moving out of gimplify.c (the only user). Bah, now I remember.. so there *are* other users.. this routine is called from various front ends.. fortran, c-family and cp all call it. That is why I wanted

Re: [patch] The remainder of tree-flow.h refactored.

2013-10-09 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > On 10/08/2013 07:44 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: >> >> On 10/08/2013 06:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> >>> graphite.h should be unnecessary with moving the pass struct like you >>> did for other loop opts. Likewise tree-parloops.h (well, ok,

Re: [patch] The remainder of tree-flow.h refactored.

2013-10-08 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On 10/08/2013 07:44 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: On 10/08/2013 06:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote: graphite.h should be unnecessary with moving the pass struct like you did for other loop opts. Likewise tree-parloops.h (well, ok, maybe you need parallelized_function_p, even though it's implementation

Re: [patch] The remainder of tree-flow.h refactored.

2013-10-08 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On 10/08/2013 06:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: This patch clears the rest of the improperly located prototypes out of tree-flow.h. A bit larger than the last few, but I was pushing to clear this up, and its not quite as bad as it seems :-)

Re: [patch] The remainder of tree-flow.h refactored.

2013-10-08 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > This patch clears the rest of the improperly located prototypes out of > tree-flow.h. A bit larger than the last few, but I was pushing to clear > this up, and its not quite as bad as it seems :-) > > Of interest: > > * tree-flow.h now conta