On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:20 PM Thomas Schwinge
<tho...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 2022-02-10T16:36:51+0000, Michael Matz via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:21 PM Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > OK to push (now, or in next development stage 1?) the attached
> >> > "Consider 'TDF_UID', 'TDF_NOUID' in 'print_node_brief', 'print_node'",
> >> > or should that be done differently -- or, per the current state (why?)
> >> > not at all?
>
> First, thanks for (indirectly) having confirmed that my confusion is not
> completely off, why this is currently missing. ;-)
>
> >> Hmm, I wonder if we shouldn't simply dump DECL_UID as
> >>
> >> 'uid NNN'
> >
> > Yes, much better in line with the normal dump_tree output.
>
> >> somewhere. For example after or before DECL_NAME?
>
> Heh -- that's what I wanted to do initially, but then I saw that we've
> currently got in 'print_node_brief' (and very similar in 'print_node'):
>
> [...]
> fprintf (file, "%s <%s", prefix, get_tree_code_name (TREE_CODE (node)));
> dump_addr (file, " ", node);
>
> if (tclass == tcc_declaration)
> {
> if (DECL_NAME (node))
> fprintf (file, " %s", IDENTIFIER_POINTER (DECL_NAME (node)));
> else if (TREE_CODE (node) == LABEL_DECL
> && LABEL_DECL_UID (node) != -1)
> {
> if (dump_flags & TDF_NOUID)
> fprintf (file, " L.xxxx");
> else
> fprintf (file, " L.%d", (int) LABEL_DECL_UID (node));
> }
> else
> {
> if (dump_flags & TDF_NOUID)
> fprintf (file, " %c.xxxx",
> TREE_CODE (node) == CONST_DECL ? 'C' : 'D');
> else
> fprintf (file, " %c.%u",
> TREE_CODE (node) == CONST_DECL ? 'C' : 'D',
> DECL_UID (node));
> }
> }
> [...]
>
> That is, if there's no 'DECL_NAME', we print 'L.[UID]', 'C.[UID]',
> 'D.[UID]'. The same we do in 'gcc/tree-pretty-print.cc:dump_decl_name',
> I found. But in the latter function, we also do it that same way if
> there is a 'DECL_NAME' ('i' -> 'iD.4249', for example), so that's why I
> copied that style back to my proposed 'print_node_brief'/'print_node'
> change.
>
> Are you now suggesting to only print 'DECL_NAME' as '[NAME] uid [UID]',
> but keep 'L.[UID]', 'C.[UID]', 'D.[UID]' in the "dot" form, or change
> these to 'L uid [UID]', 'C uid [UID]', 'D uid [UID]' correspondingly?
I'd say these should then be 'D.[UID] uid [UID]' even if that's
somewhat redundant.
> And also do the similar changes in
> 'gcc/tree-pretty-print.cc:dump_decl_name' (as well as another dozen or so
> places where such things are printed...), or don't change those?
Don't change those - you were targeting the tree dumper, not the
pretty printers.
The tree dumpers generally dump attributes separately.
>
> I don't care very much which way, just have some slight preference to
> keep things similar.
>
>
> Grüße
> Thomas
> -----------------
> Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
> München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas
> Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht
> München, HRB 106955
