On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Richard Guenther > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't think we really want that (machine dependent passes). It seems >> we cannot get away with it (so we have mdreorg). Allowing (some) flexibility >> where to put mdreorg is ok, using two different mechanisms (mdreorg and >> a "plugin") sounds odd and is IMHO bad for consistency. > > I think we definitely want machine dependent passes. E.g., reg-stack > should be one. The passes should live by normal rules, they shouldn't > be like mdreorg.
What is "like mdreorg"? That it is a pass centrally registered, called "mdreorg" that calls a target hook which happens to implement the pass? regstack is controlled by a target macro and is centrally registered, too. > I don't really care about the mechanism as long as it exists. I was suggesting to for example register a 2nd mdreorg-like pass and add a 2nd target hook. regstack should get the same treatment. Exposing machine-dependent passes in the global pass schedule makes it easier to figure what you break - as I saw the RL78 use I wondered when I ever grepped for the pass dump-file name in arch specific dirs when changing that ... (never). Richard. > Ian
