On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:08:52AM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> wrote: >> >> > So you do not plan to replace/rename at least some of them? This >> > seems like unnecessary and confusing layering just to avoid the work >> > to do the right thing. >> >> No, we plan to replace all the existing dumping routines. We are just >> not planning to add *new* ones. Duplicating the existing routines >> would indeed be useless. >> >> >> >> >> dump_raw >> >> >> >> This function overload set provides the raw oriented dump, >> >> e.g. a tuple. >> > >> > I'm not sure I understand the whole raw thing. >> >> This is to distinguish between: >> >> a = b + c; >> >> from >> >> <modify_expr, plus_expr, a, b, c> >> >> ASTs and RTL have something similar. The raw output gives you a >> different view. Not every data structure will have that distinction. >> >> >> > I'm afraid we can't really always rely on overloading. For example, >> > even though I often use debug_tree to examine a tree, probably even >> > more often I just use debug_generic_expr. When I write stuff into a >> > dump file, I rarely ever use the verbose variants but I certainly want >> > them to exist. And there might be other similar cases, like the >> > .*_brief dumping functions that are sometimes also used. >> >> Sure. The idea is to provide these variants via symbolic TDF_ style >> flags. For combinations that are very popular, we provide alternate >> entry names so that you don't have to be specifying the flags all the >> time. > > Well, this is what I was actually afraid of. If things like generic > or tree dump of a tree value is selected by new TDF_ flags, then you > are in danger of just replacing current mess in function names by a > mess of constants.
No, that's not so. Combinations of flags that are very popular will have named entry points. Additionally, the functions you mention (dump_generic, dump_tree and dump_function) are actually three "different" data structures (at least at the conceptual level, since they are all trees), so they remain different entry points. The TDF_* flags are always going to be modifiers that alter the flavour of a given data structure, they are not selectors of different concepts that happen to use the same data structure. > Moreover, would the TDF_ constants be available in gdb? IIRC hen I > use them from gdb, I always have to pass numbers. Absolutely. I also dislike having to use numbers. Diego.
