This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add phiopt in early opts (and add -fssa-phiopt option)
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:14:14 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add phiopt in early opts (and add -fssa-phiopt option)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1406171501490 dot 29270 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr>
On 06/17/14 07:07, Richard Biener wrote:
Our flags are a mess. If I put my user hat on, then I'd have to ask the
question, why would I care about tree, ssa, or even phis. The pass
converts branchy code into straightline code. So, arguably, the right
name would reflect that it changes branchy code to straight line code.
I felt that -ftree-XXX is bad naming so I went for -fssa-XXX
even if that is now inconsistent. Any optinion here? For
RTL we simply have unsuffixed names so shall we instead go
for -fphiopt? PHI implies SSA anyway and 'SSA' or 'RTL' is
an implementation detail that the user should not be interested
in (applies to tree- as well, of course). Now, 'phiopt' is a
bad name when thinking of users (but they shouldn't play with
those options anyway).
But I believe most of our flag names are poor in this regard (and I'm as
much to blame as anyone). So go with your best judgement IMHO.
It'd be nice to have some testcases here to show why we want this moved
earlier so that a few years from now when someone else wants to move it
back, we can say "umm, see test frobit.c, make that work and you can
move it back" :-)