> On 26/10/2021 03:28 Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2021, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > So it looks like tm_d.h is much more stripped down compared to regular
> > tm_p.h but also oddly enough config/default-d.c includes tm_d.h
> > while config/default-c.c explicitely documents itself to not do that.
>
> I think the intent of that comment in default-c.c (which I wrote) was that
> if a separate tm_c.h is needed, it should use its own headers, disjoint
> from those used by tm.h. In particular, as noted in the original patch
> submission
> <https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00434.html>, that
> avoids making macros used only to define hooks visible throughout the
> compiler.
>
> > Is it maybe a bug that tm_d.h includes defaults.h at all? Should
>
> It's a bug that it includes defaults.h, and a bug that it includes
> ${cpu_type}/${cpu_type}.h. Any macros used only to define D hooks should
> be in completely separate headers that aren't used elsewhere in the
> compiler.
>
> > "d defaults" be in a defaults-d.h instead? If I remove the
>
> Yes, and likewise any target-specific overrides of such macros should be
> in a separate header, not ${cpu_type}/${cpu_type}.h.
>
So the what default-d.c is doing, is pulling down per-CPU back-end information
to populate the targetdm structure where there's a supported CPU, but not
platform. The why it is doing that was I wanted to avoid both having #ifdef's
in the D front-end, and altering gcc/target.def.
It seems then that either all TARGET_D_ macros should be moved to
${cpu_type}/${cpu_type}-d.h, or do one of alternatives I was trying to avoid.
Iain.
