no_new_pseudos

Richard Sandiford richard@codesourcery.com
Wed Jul 4 17:39:00 GMT 2007


David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> 	I think the proposal is to get the semantics right first and then
> fix the syntax, not just leave the long, cumbersome flag.
>
> 	Creating a macro or alias could lead to confusion and creates an
> opportunity for divergence.

I don't understand what you mean by the second sentence.  The purpose of
the macro or alias is precisely to define what the agreed semantics are
(just as no_new_pseudos does now).  My main concern...

> 	Once this initial find-and-replace substitution is done, I am sure
> that we all will be able to agree on way to rationalize the flags, but we
> do not need to make all of the changes simultaneously.

...was that it seems odd to remove an abstraction if we're intending
to add it back again (and it wasn't clear to me before that we _were_
intending to add it back again).  But if Kenny prefers to do it that
way -- and is indeed intending to "fix the syntax" -- then that's fine.

I liked Dave's suggestion too FWIW.

Richard



More information about the Gcc mailing list