On 4/1/20 1:32 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Peter Bergner <berg...@linux.ibm.com> writes: >> 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.
Ok, I pushed the patch without breaking them apart. We can maybe revisit the issue in stage1, when I'll start testing the first patch that allows hard registers to be decomposed. Thanks! Peter
