On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:25 AM, <tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org> wrote:
> From: Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org>
>
> Hi,
>
> This fixes up a few remaining references to gimple_statement_base that were
> just brought up.
>
> bootstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, but the only non comment / doc change is
> gdbhooks.py, ok?
Ok.
Richard.
> Trev
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2015-09-23 Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org>
>
> * doc/gimple.texi: Update references to gimple_statement_base.
> * gdbhooks.py: Likewise.
> * gimple.h: Likewise.
> ---
> gcc/doc/gimple.texi | 12 ++++++------
> gcc/gdbhooks.py | 2 +-
> gcc/gimple.h | 10 +++++-----
> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/gimple.texi b/gcc/doc/gimple.texi
> index 543de90..d089d4f 100644
> --- a/gcc/doc/gimple.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/gimple.texi
> @@ -92,8 +92,8 @@ groups: a header describing the instruction and its
> locations,
> and a variable length body with all the operands. Tuples are
> organized into a hierarchy with 3 main classes of tuples.
>
> -@subsection @code{gimple_statement_base} (gsbase)
> -@cindex gimple_statement_base
> +@subsection @code{gimple} (gsbase)
> +@cindex gimple
>
> This is the root of the hierarchy, it holds basic information
> needed by most GIMPLE statements. There are some fields that
> @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ is then inherited from the other two tuples.
>
> @itemize @bullet
> @item @code{gsbase}
> -Inherited from @code{struct gimple_statement_base}.
> +Inherited from @code{struct gimple}.
>
> @item @code{def_ops}
> Array of pointers into the operand array indicating all the slots that
> @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ kinds, along with their relationships to @code{GSS_}
> values (layouts) and
> @code{GIMPLE_} values (codes):
>
> @smallexample
> - gimple_statement_base
> + gimple
> | layout: GSS_BASE
> | used for 4 codes: GIMPLE_ERROR_MARK
> | GIMPLE_NOP
> @@ -2654,7 +2654,7 @@ any new basic blocks which are necessary.
>
> The first step in adding a new GIMPLE statement code, is
> modifying the file @code{gimple.def}, which contains all the GIMPLE
> -codes. Then you must add a corresponding gimple_statement_base subclass
> +codes. Then you must add a corresponding gimple subclass
> located in @code{gimple.h}. This in turn, will require you to add a
> corresponding @code{GTY} tag in @code{gsstruct.def}, and code to handle
> this tag in @code{gss_for_code} which is located in @code{gimple.c}.
> @@ -2667,7 +2667,7 @@ in @code{gimple.c}.
> You will probably want to create a function to build the new
> gimple statement in @code{gimple.c}. The function should be called
> @code{gimple_build_@var{new-tuple-name}}, and should return the new tuple
> -as a pointer to the appropriate gimple_statement_base subclass.
> +as a pointer to the appropriate gimple subclass.
>
> If your new statement requires accessors for any members or
> operands it may have, put simple inline accessors in
> diff --git a/gcc/gdbhooks.py b/gcc/gdbhooks.py
> index 3a62a2d..2b9a94c 100644
> --- a/gcc/gdbhooks.py
> +++ b/gcc/gdbhooks.py
> @@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ def build_pretty_printer():
> 'cgraph_node', CGraphNodePrinter)
> pp.add_printer_for_types(['dw_die_ref'],
> 'dw_die_ref', DWDieRefPrinter)
> - pp.add_printer_for_types(['gimple', 'gimple_statement_base *',
> + pp.add_printer_for_types(['gimple', 'gimple *',
>
> # Keep this in the same order as gimple.def:
> 'gimple_cond', 'const_gimple_cond',
> diff --git a/gcc/gimple.h b/gcc/gimple.h
> index 91c26b6..30b1041 100644
> --- a/gcc/gimple.h
> +++ b/gcc/gimple.h
> @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ enum gimple_rhs_class
> };
>
> /* Specific flags for individual GIMPLE statements. These flags are
> - always stored in gimple_statement_base.subcode and they may only be
> + always stored in gimple.subcode and they may only be
> defined for statement codes that do not use subcodes.
>
> Values for the masks can overlap as long as the overlapping values
> @@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ struct GTY((tag("GSS_BIND")))
> tree vars;
>
> /* [ WORD 8 ]
> - This is different than the BLOCK field in gimple_statement_base,
> + This is different than the BLOCK field in gimple,
> which is analogous to TREE_BLOCK (i.e., the lexical block holding
> this statement). This field is the equivalent of BIND_EXPR_BLOCK
> in tree land (i.e., the lexical scope defined by this bind). See
> @@ -744,7 +744,7 @@ struct GTY((tag("GSS_OMP_SINGLE_LAYOUT")))
>
>
> /* GIMPLE_OMP_ATOMIC_LOAD.
> - Note: This is based on gimple_statement_base, not g_s_omp, because g_s_omp
> + Note: This is based on gimple, not g_s_omp, because g_s_omp
> contains a sequence, which we don't need here. */
>
> struct GTY((tag("GSS_OMP_ATOMIC_LOAD")))
> @@ -1813,7 +1813,7 @@ gimple_set_no_warning (gimple *stmt, bool no_warning)
>
> You can learn more about the visited property of the gimple
> statement by reading the comments of the 'visited' data member of
> - struct gimple statement_base.
> + struct gimple.
> */
>
> static inline void
> @@ -1832,7 +1832,7 @@ gimple_set_visited (gimple *stmt, bool visited_p)
>
> You can learn more about the visited property of the gimple
> statement by reading the comments of the 'visited' data member of
> - struct gimple statement_base. */
> + struct gimple. */
>
> static inline bool
> gimple_visited_p (gimple *stmt)
> --
> 2.4.0
>
