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

[Andrew Thomas Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>]

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} ***