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, fortran] Introducing -fdump-optimized-tree

From: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
To: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at netcologne dot de>
Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:01:13 +0200
Subject: Re: [patch, fortran] Introducing -fdump-optimized-tree
References: <1287956428.26284.8.camel@linux-fd1f.site> <AANLkTimpkn3p1CkkANxSbykc6EMf1fr1_D1ts=-toCZz@mail.gmail.com> <1288068211.3604.1.camel@linux-fd1f.site>

Thomas,

I think the patch is OK; however, I agree with Diego that the name is confusing.

On 10/26/2010 06:43 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:

Diego Novillo wrote:
fdump-fortran-xxx? Or perhaps have an umbrella fdump=...
fdump-fortran-original and fdump-fortran-optimized sounds good to me.

Looks also fine to me.

Should we keep fdump-parse-tree around as an alias for 4.6, then remove
it for 4.7?

Well, in principle one should really avoid removing flags; thus, we can deprecate it, but I am not sure that we should already remove it in 4.7. (On the other hand, -fdump-parse-tree is presumably extremely rarely used by users and also I hardly every use it - thus, it does not matter as much as removing -fbounds-check in favour of -fcheck=bounds would do.)

Tobias

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch, fortran] Introducing -fdump-optimized-tree
  - From: Thomas Koenig

References:
- [patch, fortran] Introducing -fdump-optimized-tree
  - From: Thomas Koenig
- Re: [patch, fortran] Introducing -fdump-optimized-tree
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: [patch, fortran] Introducing -fdump-optimized-tree
  - From: Thomas Koenig

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