Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Jul 5, 2007, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > The work here is not changing the bits. the work here is the actual >> > auditing of each place to see if it was the correct place. >> >> Then I guess the best option is to leave no_new_pseudos defined as a >> macro, such that we can introduce the enumeration and migrate to it in >> a way that makes it clear what has been migrated and what hasn't. > > I think the best option is for somebody to go through the uses of > no_new_pseudos and fix them. Incomplete transitions are bad.
I admit I'm still not sure on this point, and seeing "fix them" makes me even more unsure, so: do you think the targets' tests of no_new_pseudos are somehow bad? My point is that I've been using "no_new_pseudos" _in preference to_ "reload_in_progress || reload_completed" because I find it much more mnemonic. I certainly haven't been using it because the code had to handle "no_new_pseudos && !reload_in_progress && !reload_completed". That's why it seems so odd to me to want to get rid of the port uses and not replace it with something directly equivalent. I just don't see how it qualifies as a clean-up. I think tying the ports even more to reload-specific conditions, even when we already have a more abstract concept, is the wrong way to go. Richard
