This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Ben Elliston <bje at au1 dot ibm dot com>, Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, "Weigand, Ulrich" <Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Date: 2010年5月26日 12:27:04 +0200
- Subject: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?
Hello,
Just yesterday alone, I found two target *macros* introduced in 2008/2009:
TARGET_ENUM_VA_LIST, introduced by:
2008年07月06日 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.
(TARGET_CANONICAL_VA_LIST_TYPE): New.
(TARGET_ENUM_VA_LIST): New.
and TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_KEYWORDS, introduced by:
2009年10月26日 Ben Elliston <bje at au dot ibm dot com>
Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
* doc/tm.texi (TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_KEYWORDS): Document.
These patches were all reviewed and approved by maintainers who should
know if there is (or not) a goal of the GCC community to have target
hooks instead of target macros. And yet, there you are: two new target
macros. Pool Anatoly Sokolov will have a life time job turning macros
into hooks if new macros are allowed to appear.
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?
Kai already said on IRC last night that he can hookize
TARGET_ENUM_VA_LIST. Could the folks who introduced
TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_KEYWORDS please do the same?
Ciao!
Steven