On 1/13/06, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 11 January 2006 10:05, Zdenek Dvorak wrote: > > > my opinion is that with -details, the passes should dump as much as > > possible while being readable, as this is the default level at that (at > > least) I work when debugging. If someone wants to see everything, he > > can use -all, I do not see much reasons to have -details duplicate this > > behavior. > > > Well, -all is different. It enables all the other TDFs (TDF_UID, > TDF_LINENO, etc). TDF_DETAILS works at a higher-level, it tells the pass > to show more details about what it does. It was meant to do things like > show the activities done by the SSA propagator, for instance. > > > another point to consider is that perhaps there might be some common > > way how to specify "detail level"; we already have -fsched-verbose=num > > and -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=num, perhaps we should avoid having a > > separate flag for each pass. > > > Good point. Would you be willing to work on implementing this? Or perhaps > put it in the TODO list on the Wiki so someone else can work on it? > > In the meantime, I don't have a strong objection to your TDF_ANALYSIS, so > go ahead with it, if you want.
What I like to have is a -fdump-tree-all-XXX that only dumps function bodies, not pass specific stuff. Richard.
