shouldn't every middle-end pass be uniquely named?

shouldn't every middle-end pass be uniquely named?

[Basile STARYNKEVITCH]

Hello All,

Some middle-end passes (those declared in tree-passes.h) are still unnamed.

I tend to believe that it would be helpful (mostly for gcc debugging 
purposes) that every struct opt_pass (without exception) should be 
uniquely named (and that this should be enforced, eg. in ENABLE_CHECKING 
mode (essentially by registering each pass in an hash table in function 
next_pass_1 of gcc/passes.c)

What do people think about that?

Except as a habit (which I think is a bad one) is there any reason to 
have anonymous passes (those with a null pass->name), or (I don't know 
if such beast exists) homonym passes (two different passes with equal 
pass->name)?

Regards.
-- 
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***

Re: shouldn't every middle-end pass be uniquely named?

[Andrew Thomas Pinski]

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 31, 2008, at 1:11, Basile STARYNKEVITCH  
<basile@starynkevitch.net> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> Some middle-end passes (those declared in tree-passes.h) are still  
> unnamed.
>
> I tend to believe that it would be helpful (mostly for gcc debugging  
> purposes) that every struct opt_pass (without exception) should be  
> uniquely named (and that this should be enforced, eg. in  
> ENABLE_CHECKING mode (essentially by registering each pass in an  
> hash table in function next_pass_1 of gcc/passes.c)
>
> What do people think about that?
>
> Except as a habit (which I think is a bad one) is there any reason  
> to have anonymous passes (those with a null pass->name), or (I don't  
> know if such beast exists) homonym passes (two different passes with  
> equal pass->name)?

Yes. To prevent a dump file. One such example is freeing the internal  
data structures. That should not have a dump.

>
>
> Regards.
> -- 
> Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
> email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
> 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
> *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***

Re: shouldn't every middle-end pass be uniquely named?

[Basile STARYNKEVITCH]

Andrew Thomas Pinski wrote:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> Except as a habit (which I think is a bad one) is there any reason to 
>> have anonymous passes (those with a null pass->name), or (I don't know 
>> if such beast exists) homonym passes (two different passes with equal 
>> pass->name)?
> 
> Yes. To prevent a dump file. One such example is freeing the internal 
> data structures. That should not have a dump.

We might add a field (e.g. unsigned avoid_dump) to struct opt_pass for 
that, or decide that passes name starting with a star (or whatever 
convention people want) do not have any dump file.

In addition of help debugging of GCC, having each pass be named could be 
helpful for other reasons. For example, a plugin machinery would be much 
simpler (basically a plugin could say add my pass named foo after every 
pass named bar).


-- 
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***

Re: shouldn't every middle-end pass be uniquely named?

[Basile STARYNKEVITCH]

Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> Andrew Thomas Pinski wrote:
>>>
>>> Except as a habit (which I think is a bad one) is there any reason to 
>>> have anonymous passes (those with a null pass->name), or (I don't 
>>> know if such beast exists) homonym passes (two different passes with 
>>> equal pass->name)?
>>
>> Yes. To prevent a dump file. One such example is freeing the internal 
>> data structures. That should not have a dump.
> 
> We might add a field (e.g. unsigned avoid_dump) to struct opt_pass for 
> that, or decide that passes name starting with a star (or whatever 
> convention people want) do not have any dump file.


I actually proposed a patch on gcc-patches@ which do not dump when the 
pass name starts with a dot (better than a star, because following unix 
conventions for "hidden" files)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/msg02406.html

regards.
-- 
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***