Re: [PATCH] lower-subreg: PR94123, SVN r273240, causes gcc.target/powerpc/pr87507.c to fail

[Peter Bergner <bergner@linux.ibm.com>]

On 3/30/20 3:50 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Peter Bergner via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>> 	* lower-subreg.c (pass_lower_subreg3::gate): Remove test for
>> 	flag_split_wide_types_early.
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/lower-subreg.c b/gcc/lower-subreg.c
>> index 4c8bc835f93..807ad398b64 100644
>> --- a/gcc/lower-subreg.c
>> +++ b/gcc/lower-subreg.c
>> @@ -1844,8 +1844,7 @@ public:
>>    {}
>>  
>>    /* opt_pass methods: */
>> -  virtual bool gate (function *) { return flag_split_wide_types
>> -					  && !flag_split_wide_types_early; }
>> +  virtual bool gate (function *) { return flag_split_wide_types != 0; }
>>    virtual unsigned int execute (function *)
>>      {
>>        decompose_multiword_subregs (true);
> 
> Looks good to me with the s/ != 0// that Segher mentioned.
> 
> With this change, the only remaining function of -fsplit-wide-types-early
> is to act as a double lock on one pass.  IMO it'd make more sense to remove
> that double lock and make -fsplit-wide-types-early and -fsplit-wide-types
> act as independent options, a bit like -fschedule-insns{,2}.

Have we come to consensus on whether to split the options or not?
I think Segher is against it given we actually have 3 passes of
lower-subreg and -fsplit-wide-types would control the 1st and 3rd
passes and -fsplit-wide-types-early would control the second.
That does seem strange to me too.

Peter