On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 2:14 PM Thomas Schwinge <tschwi...@baylibre.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > On 2013-07-26T11:04:32-0400, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Introduce a new gen-pass-instances.awk script, and use it at build time > > to make a pass-instances.def from passes.def. > > (The script has later been rewritten and extended, but the issue I'm > discussing is relevant already in its original version.) > > > The generated pass-instances.def contains similar content to passes.def, > > but the pass instances within it are explicitly numbered, so that e.g. > > the third instance of: > > > > NEXT_PASS (pass_copy_prop) > > > > becomes: > > > > NEXT_PASS (pass_copy_prop, 3) > > > --- a/gcc/passes.c > > +++ b/gcc/passes.c > > @@ -1315,12 +1315,12 @@ pipeline::pipeline (context *ctxt) > > #define POP_INSERT_PASSES() \ > > } > > > > -#define NEXT_PASS(PASS) (p = next_pass_1 (p, &((PASS).pass))) > > +#define NEXT_PASS(PASS, NUM) (p = next_pass_1 (p, &((PASS).pass))) > > > > #define TERMINATE_PASS_LIST() \ > > *p = NULL; > > > > -#include "passes.def" > > +#include "pass-instances.def" > > Given this, the usage comment at the top of 'gcc/passes.def' (see below) > no longer is accurate (even if that latter file does continue to use the > 'NEXT_PASS' form without 'NUM') -- and, worse, the 'NEXT_PASS' etc. in > that usage comment are processed by the 'gcc/gen-pass-instances.awk' > script: > > --- source-gcc/gcc/passes.def 2024-06-24 18:55:15.132561641 +0200 > +++ build-gcc/gcc/pass-instances.def 2024-06-24 18:55:27.768562714 > +0200 > [...] > @@ -20,546 +22,578 @@ > /* > Macros that should be defined when using this file: > INSERT_PASSES_AFTER (PASS) > PUSH_INSERT_PASSES_WITHIN (PASS) > POP_INSERT_PASSES () > - NEXT_PASS (PASS) > + NEXT_PASS (PASS, 1) > TERMINATE_PASS_LIST (PASS) > */ > [...] > > (That is, this is 'NEXT_PASS' for the first instance of pass 'PASS'.) > That's benign so far, but with another thing that I'll be extending, I'd > then run into an error while the script handles this comment block. ;-\ > > OK to push "Rewrite usage comment at the top of 'gcc/passes.def'", see > attached?
OK > > Grüße > Thomas > >
