On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Tobias Burnus <bur...@net-b.de> wrote: > Steven Bosscher wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Tobias Burnus <bur...@net-b.de> wrote: >>> >>> On 07/07/2012 11:28 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: >>>> >>>> I must say, I am surprised that gfortran.h includes coretypes.h. The >>>> idea always was to try and keep the front end and the back end as much >>>> separated as possible, and including coretypes.h in the most important >>>> front-end header doesn't fit in that picture. I initially tried to >>>> just stop including flags.h in e.g. fortran/arith.c because I couldn't >>>> think of anything that arith.h should know from flags.h, but that >>>> breaks the build because arith.c looks at 'pedantic' from the >>>> generated file options.h. > > > Well, those are much more intertwined: > > If one changes "pedantic" to "gfc_option.gfc_pedantic" and does not include > "coretypes.h", gfortran.h fails because "tree" is not defined. > > Addtionally, I get some failures because of "tls_model". > > If one now includes "tree.h" in gfortran.h, it fails because "tree.h" > includes "vecir.h", which has at the top: > #ifndef GCC_CORETYPES_H > #error "vecir.h must be included after coretypes.h" > #endif > > > I think the old version was cleaner. Hence, I would really like to revert > your patch, > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-07/msg00019/fortran_coretypes.diff > > Comments?
If you revert it, the build fails. > Suggestions? Give me some time to look into this, and I'll fix things. Ciao! Steven
