Peter Bergner <berg...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> On 3/30/20 3:50 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Peter Bergner via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>>> * lower-subreg.c (pass_lower_subreg3::gate): Remove test for
>>> flag_split_wide_types_early.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/lower-subreg.c b/gcc/lower-subreg.c
>>> index 4c8bc835f93..807ad398b64 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/lower-subreg.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/lower-subreg.c
>>> @@ -1844,8 +1844,7 @@ public:
>>> {}
>>>
>>> /* opt_pass methods: */
>>> - virtual bool gate (function *) { return flag_split_wide_types
>>> - && !flag_split_wide_types_early; }
>>> + virtual bool gate (function *) { return flag_split_wide_types != 0; }
>>> virtual unsigned int execute (function *)
>>> {
>>> decompose_multiword_subregs (true);
>>
>> Looks good to me with the s/ != 0// that Segher mentioned.
>>
>> With this change, the only remaining function of -fsplit-wide-types-early
>> is to act as a double lock on one pass. IMO it'd make more sense to remove
>> that double lock and make -fsplit-wide-types-early and -fsplit-wide-types
>> act as independent options, a bit like -fschedule-insns{,2}.
>
> Have we come to consensus on whether to split the options or not?
> I think Segher is against it given we actually have 3 passes of
> lower-subreg and -fsplit-wide-types would control the 1st and 3rd
> passes and -fsplit-wide-types-early would control the second.
> That does seem strange to me too.
I guess the name of the option is a bit weird, since it'll control
the middle pass of three. That's going to be true either way though.
We're talking about having independent options controlling independent
passes, which seems like a Good Thing in general and doesn't seem that
strange to me in this case. But I'm certainly happy to yield given the
strong opinions the other way.
Thanks,
Richard
