Hi, On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 11/19/12, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > > On Nov 19, 2012 Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > > > So, yes, the larger layouting should be determined by name of the > > > dump function. A flag argument might look nice from an interface > > > design perspective, but it's harder to use in the debugger. > > > > As long as all these different objects share the same data > > structure, we will need to have different named entry points. > > Ideally they would all respond to 'dump(t)' and overloading will > > figure it out automatically. For now, we'll need dump_function, > > dump_tree, dump_generic, and we may need a few more. > > Diego and I talked about this a bit more, and would like to explore > a set of dump names that distinguish between dumping the head of > an item and its body. In essence, the former asks for the function > declaration, the latter its definition. > > Comments? Sounds useful for functions. But what other items do you have in mind? What's the head of a PLUS_EXPR, or generally a tree that isn't DECL_P, or of a gimple_seq or an CFG edge? For the two latter I could conconct some artificial definition of head, but it would feel arbitrary. Ciao, Michael.
