This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add phiopt in early opts (and add -fssa-phiopt option)


On 06/17/14 07:07, Richard Biener wrote:

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).
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.

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" :-)

jeff


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]