On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 10:14:41AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/27/2015 03:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 5:10 AM, <tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org> wrote: > >>From: Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org> > >> > >>Hi, > >> > >>$subject. > >> > >>patches individually bootstrapped + regtested on x86_64-linux-gnu, and run > >>through config-list.mk with more patches removing usage of the macro. Ok? > > > >With POINTER_SIZE now being expensive (target hook) you might consider > >moving most users to use pointer_sized_int_node or some other global > >derived from POINTER_SIZE. > > > >Which of course raises the question of why we are hookizing this... if you'd > >want a truly switchable target you'd have to switch all global trees as well > >(or hookize them individually). > Not sure -- it doesn't remove any conditionally compiled code... > > One could easily argue that it's just another step on the path towards a > switchable target -- which in and of itself is a reasonable design goal.
So my some what more intermediate goal was to have less files including target specific headers, eventually getting to the point we might be able to build a large part of the compiler independent of the target. Of course I think in the end really switchable targets would be nice. Trev > > Trevor, maybe a quick note on the motivation would help here... > > jeff > > >
