On 07/29/2013 01:32 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 10:25 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/17/2013 07:18 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
gcc/
Explicitly number the instances of passes within passes.def.
This is needed by a subsequent patch so that we can create
fields within the pipeline class for each pass instance (to help
locate pass instances when debugging).
* passes.c (NEXT_PASS_NUM): Define.
* passes.def (NEXT_PASS, NEXT_PASS_NUM): Replace uses of
NEXT_PASS on passes that have multiple instances with uses of
NEXT_PASS_NUM.
So this means we have to track down the instance number if we add a
duplicate pass in the pipeline. I can see positives and negatives of
doing that. I'll go along as I'm a proponent of the goal of having the
passes be a first class object.
Ok for the trunk.
Thanks. Out of interest, what do you see as the positives and
negatives?
Positives being the uniqueness (which you need). Negatives are
maintenance as we add passes, in particular if a pass is run more than once.
Given Andrew's objections to managing pass instance numbers by hand, I
went with an alternate approach, and wrote an awk script to generate a
pass-instances.def from passes.def at build time:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01263.html
in the patch series I sent for review on Friday.
Which is even better.
jeff
