shouldn't every middle-end pass be uniquely named?

[Basile STARYNKEVITCH]

Andrew Thomas Pinski wrote:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> Except as a habit (which I think is a bad one) is there any reason to 
>> have anonymous passes (those with a null pass->name), or (I don't know 
>> if such beast exists) homonym passes (two different passes with equal 
>> pass->name)?
> 
> Yes. To prevent a dump file. One such example is freeing the internal 
> data structures. That should not have a dump.

We might add a field (e.g. unsigned avoid_dump) to struct opt_pass for 
that, or decide that passes name starting with a star (or whatever 
convention people want) do not have any dump file.

In addition of help debugging of GCC, having each pass be named could be 
helpful for other reasons. For example, a plugin machinery would be much 
simpler (basically a plugin could say add my pass named foo after every 
pass named bar).


-- 
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***