Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 31, 2008, at 1:11, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello All,
Some middle-end passes (those declared in tree-passes.h) are still
unnamed.
I tend to believe that it would be helpful (mostly for gcc debugging
purposes) that every struct opt_pass (without exception) should be
uniquely named (and that this should be enforced, eg. in
ENABLE_CHECKING mode (essentially by registering each pass in an
hash table in function next_pass_1 of gcc/passes.c)
What do people think about that?
Except as a habit (which I think is a bad one) is there any reason
to have anonymous passes (those with a null pass->name), or (I don't
know if such beast exists) homonym passes (two different passes with
equal pass->name)?
Yes. To prevent a dump file. One such example is freeing the internal
data structures. That should not have a dump.
Regards.
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
