Re: include tree.h instead of tree-core.h in expr.h

2013-12-18 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: >>> On 12/18/2013 08:08 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrot

Re: include tree.h instead of tree-core.h in expr.h

2013-12-18 Thread Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: >> On 12/18/2013 08:08 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni >>> wrote: >>> Would it be better to include tree.h instead of tree-cor

Re: include tree.h instead of tree-core.h in expr.h

2013-12-18 Thread Diego Novillo
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > On 12/18/2013 08:08 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> wrote: >> >>> Would it be better to include tree.h instead of tree-core.h (tree.h >>> includes tree-core.h anyway), or shall I leave

Re: include tree.h instead of tree-core.h in expr.h

2013-12-18 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On 12/18/2013 08:08 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Would it be better to include tree.h instead of tree-core.h (tree.h includes tree-core.h anyway), or shall I leave these macros untouched ? Better leave these macros intact for now. We are

Re: include tree.h instead of tree-core.h in expr.h

2013-12-18 Thread Diego Novillo
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > Would it be better to include tree.h instead of tree-core.h (tree.h > includes tree-core.h anyway), or shall I leave these macros untouched > ? Better leave these macros intact for now. We are trying to flatten out the #include tree.