This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Unit at time compilation mode III
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:40:14 +0000
- Subject: Re: Unit at time compilation mode III
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> > > > The phrase "unit at time" is not correct English grammar;
> > > > it should be "unit at a time".
> > > > You might want to consider s/unit-at-time/unit-at-a-time/g
> > > > and s/flag_unit_at_time/flag_unit_at_a_time/g
> > >
> > > Hmm, I tend to preffer to omit articles in switches. But honestly I
> > > tent to omit articles everywhere just because Czech language does not
> > > use them. So here is updated patch with all the changes you suggested.
> > > Thanks!
> > Wouldn't "whole-file" be a better name for the flag anyway?
> > Other alternatives are
> > file-at-once
> > unit-at-once
> > ...
> I will rename it to whatever sounds more appropriate.
> file is IMO less exact as unit can consist of multiple times. I choosed
> unit at a time name as it seemed consistent with function at a time
> patches made previously.
It's true that unit-at-once could be interpreted to mean multiple files.
But if we enabled that, surely we'd want a separate flag for that to
distinguish it over doing whole files at once. I can imagine people being
concerned about memory usage in the case where we allowed multiple files.