From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-89164-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11240 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2004 21:33:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 11233 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 21:33:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost2.tudelft.nl) (130.161.180.2)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 21:33:01 -0000
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by rav.antivirus (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 0430B182D5; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:33:01 +0100 (MET)
Received: from listserv.tudelft.nl (listserv.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.33])
	by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EA41F182D2; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:33:00 +0100 (MET)
Received: from steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (hekje1.shuis.tudelft.nl [145.94.192.78])
	by listserv.tudelft.nl (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0HLX0QP016118;
	Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:33:00 +0100 (MET)
Received: by steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id 9FF4799F9D; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:30:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de>
To: law@redhat.com, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:33:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>, Gerald Pfeifer <gp@suse.de>,
	"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
	"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk>
References: <200401172121.i0HLLBqM031117@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <200401172121.i0HLLBqM031117@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
Organization: SUSE Labs
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200401172230.38336.stevenb@suse.de>
X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01119.txt.bz2

On Saturday 17 January 2004 22:21, law@redhat.com wrote:
> In message <C978C33E-48FB-11D8-AECF-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org>, Daniel
> Berlin wr
>
> ites:
>  >> Err, no they aren't.  For example we have a host of -f options which
>  >> control
>  >> debugging dumps rather than code generation.  That's wrong.
>  >
>  >Are you referring to -fdump-tree*?
>
> Yes.
>
>  >It is my understanding that this was already there when we started (and
>  >in fact, exists on the mainline too), we just extended it.
>
> Really.  Well, that's not really a good reason to extend broken practice.
>
>  >It seems like a simple renaming job would address that concern anyway.
>
> Yup.  But we can't honestly say we follow option/documentation conventions
> knowing that this issue is still unresolved.

Honza and I would like to unify our tree and RTL debug dump handling.  I
guess we can move it up on the TODO list if this is an important issue.

Gr.
Steven