From: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org>
To: Richard Biener via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove MAY_HAVE_DEBUG_MARKER_STMTS and MAY_HAVE_DEBUG_BIND_STMTS.
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 05:59:23 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <or1r3cv7v8.fsf@lxoliva.fsfla.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc0kpGP6C7EaGPuhZc3bBjLbCMLAHXenhyWP4W3n1r=8Rg@mail.gmail.com> (Richard Biener via Gcc-patches's message of "Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:05:39 +0200")
On Oct 18, 2021, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:54 AM Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote:
>>
>> The macros correspond 1:1 to an option flags and make it harder
>> to find all usages of the flags.
>>
>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>>
>> Ready to be installed?
> Hmm, they were introduced on purpose
Yup. Though there is a 1:1 equivalence right now, conceptually other
kinds of debug marker stmts, and of debug bind stmts, could be
introduced, and then the macros would be adjusted to encompass the new
functionality, covering presumably different options as well.
By removing the macros, every use of the options would have to be
reassessed to tell whether it needs to be changed to cover the new
features, or left alone because it's really meant to refer to that
specific option.
So I find the abstraction useful. However, I don't have plans to add
other kinds of debug stmts, and I don't know of anyone else who does, so
I won't stand in the way if others think removing these abstractions is
a positive change.
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-19 8:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-18 8:54 Martin Liška
2021-10-18 10:05 ` Richard Biener
2021-11-12 14:37 ` Martin Liška
2021-11-16 2:21 ` Jeff Law
2021-11-19 8:59 ` Alexandre Oliva [this message]
2021-11-19 9:38 ` Richard Biener
2021-11-19 9:44 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-11-19 13:22 ` Martin Liška
2021-11-19 14:06 ` Richard Biener
2021-11-19 14:30 ` Martin Liška
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=or1r3cv7v8.fsf@lxoliva.fsfla.org \
--to=oliva@gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).