pretty printing trends and questions

[Basile STARYNKEVITCH]

Diego Novillo wrote:
> <basile@starynkevitch.net> wrote:
>> I am correct in assuming that pretty printing & debug dumping in GCC tend to
>> go thru the pretty printer abstraction of gcc/pretty-printer.h   hence that
>> the old way of printing directly to a file (like e.g. dump_bb or debug_bb in
>> gcc/cfg.c for printing basic_block-s) is deprecated, or is it the other way
>> round (that using pretty-printer.h is deprecated in favor of routines with a
>> FILE* argument)?
> 
> They're orthogonal.  The pretty printer uses its own buffering, but
> the final target is always a FILE *.  All the dump_*() routines are
> implemented with a FILE * argument and the debug_*() routines are just
> calls to dump_*() with FILE set to stderr.

Do you mean that the trend is to have both dump_* routines (writing to 
FILE*) and prettyprinting routines? Except of course the historical 
existence of code, I don't understand why both are needed (unless 
dumping is outputting in a different way than prettyprinting).
> 
>>> void
>>> pp_construct_routdata (pretty_printer *pp, const char *prefix, int
>>> maximum_length, void (*flushrout)(const char*,void*), void *flushdata)
>> I would like to avoid using fmemopen; it seems very GNU GLIBC specific...
> 
> Using fmemopen is probably the easiest way.  Another way would be
> adding support in the pretty-printer basic routines to emit to a char
> * buffer.  It would probably need several changes but I'm not quite
> sure how extensive would that be.

I understood that all prettyprinting is systematically using an obstack 
as a buffer (actually, I renamed the FILE* field to something else, and 
it does not appear a lot).



-- 
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} ***