On 9/24/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That is exactly what I had in mind. If you invalidate a property then > > the property is destroyed and whoever asks for it must invoke the > > relevant function to enable it again. Is that a problem? > > In principle, I don't think that'd be a problem. There will be > surprises lurking, though. > > Also, I haven't thought whether this would be any simpler or easier to > use than the current scheme. I guess I don't mind either way. >
The main difference is that passes now say whether they've destroyed something or preserved something, instead of it being fixed and trying to have the TODO's check whether anything needs to be done. In practice, it is much easier to try new pass orderings if you make the passes run what they need, instead of statically verifying you've gotten the magic pass properties right :)
