Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Richard Guenther ><richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Richi, could you please have a look at jump threading, and see if >>> first_pass_instance can be remove? > >Ping? :-) > > >>> Bootstrapped&tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk? >> >> This was proposed before and I did not like that, > >I wasn't aware of that. Why wasn't the comment before >first_pass_instance in tree-pass.h adjusted? It quite explicitly >suggests that it is a work-around that should not be proliferated. > > >> it makes -fdump-tree-reassoc >> non-functional (you have to use -fdump-tree-reassoc1 >-fdump-tree-reassoc2). >> I much prefer an internal "hack" than such externally visible oddity. >> >> That said, add to struct pass a member "instance number" which a >> pass can check via current_pass. > >That replaces one global variable use with another, at the cost of >changing all pass structures everywhere and looking at current_pass >from within a pass. That's just backwards. > >(And actually, I would like to see current_pass go away, too. Its only >user right now are statistics.c, config/avr/avr-log., and >config/epiphany/epiphany.c.) > >It'd be nice if there would be some way to allow passes to reflect on >themselves... Or at least allow the pass manager to feed the pass >execution function some data. Perhaps I'll take that path instead: add >an "int flags" argument to the execute function and pass it some TBD >value that this is the first time the pass runs, would that work for >you?
Yes. Make it a >Ciao! >Steven Yes, make it a pointer to a struct so we can easily extend it and pass it to gate, too. Richard -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
