This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk


On 9/24/07, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That is exactly what I had in mind. If you invalidate a property then
> > the property is destroyed and whoever asks for it must invoke the
> > relevant function to enable it again. Is that a problem?
>
> In principle, I don't think that'd be a problem.  There will be
> surprises lurking, though.
>
> Also, I haven't thought whether this would be any simpler or easier to
> use than the current scheme.  I guess I don't mind either way.
>

The main difference is that passes now say whether they've destroyed
something or preserved something, instead of it being fixed and trying
to have the TODO's check whether anything needs to be done.

In practice, it is much easier to try new pass orderings if you make
the passes run what they need, instead of statically verifying you've
gotten the magic pass  properties right :)


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