This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ra-debug.c: why?
- From: Pop Sébastian <pop at gauvain dot u-strasbg dot fr>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Michael Matz <matzmich at cs dot tu-berlin dot de>,Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>,Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:30:18 +0200
- Subject: Re: ra-debug.c: why?
- References: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0207181122080.4652-100000@platon> <1027006229.2097.15.camel@frodo>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 11:30:29AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 07:05, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> > But I definetely prefer seeing
> >
> > 4 p59 <= [(h16 + 4)]:DF
> >
> > compared with
> >
> > (insn:HI 4 3 5 0 (nil) (set (reg/v:DF 59)
> > (mem/f:DF (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 16 argp)
> > (const_int 4 [0x4])) [3 b+0 S8 A64])) 94 {*movdf_nointeger} (nil)
> > (nil))
> >
> Really? Fantastic! I've had something like this on my todo list for a
> long time now.
>
> How hard would it be to make this dumper generic enough so that we could
> have a flag for making *all* RTL dumps using infix notation?
>
> I find the traditional RTL dump notation extremely irritating and very
> hard to read. One gets used to it, but it's still annoying.
>
I'd say that the traditional rtl dumping looks like lisp expressions
(with lot of inutile and stupid parentheses :-)).
After all we're not lisp interpreters :-)
Making gcc's representations hard to read has some historic reason,
but having a pretty printer for rtl could make development and debugging
simpler at rtl level.
Sebastian