On April 25, 2014 6:56:00 PM CEST, Prathamesh Kulkarni <[email protected]> wrote: >On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Richard Biener ><[email protected]> wrote: >> On April 25, 2014 4:54:28 PM CEST, Prathamesh Kulkarni ><[email protected]> wrote: >>>Hi, >>> I have a daft question to ask. I was looking through genmatch, I >>>couldn't figure out why is tree code class (TYPE) stringified in call >>>to add_operator () ? >>> >>>#define DEFTREECODE (SYM, STRING, TYPE, NARGS) \ >>> add_operator (SYM, #SYM, #TYPE, NARGS) >>> >>>In add_operator() tcc (argument corresponding to TYPE) is only used >>>to check if the tree code belongs to one of (tcc_unary, tcc_binary, >>>tcc_comparison, tcc_expression, tcc_reference) classes. Why can't we >>>use enum tree_code_class for tcc ? >> >> Because there is no .def file for Tcc so we'd have to errors prone >duplicate the enum. >I was wondering why we couldn't include tree-core.h in genmatch ? >Something similar to the attached patch. Shall that be incorrect ?
Sure, if it doesn't end up including target specifics on the host. Richard. >Thanks and Regards, >Prathamesh >> >> Richard. >> >>>Thanks and Regards, >>>Prathamesh >> >>
