[PATCH][RFC] Add phiopt in early opts (and add -fssa-phiopt option)
Jeff Law
law@redhat.com
Tue Jun 17 18:14:00 GMT 2014
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
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list