On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> wrote:
> So you do not plan to replace/rename at least some of them? This > seems like unnecessary and confusing layering just to avoid the work > to do the right thing. No, we plan to replace all the existing dumping routines. We are just not planning to add *new* ones. Duplicating the existing routines would indeed be useless. >> >> dump_raw >> >> This function overload set provides the raw oriented dump, >> e.g. a tuple. > > I'm not sure I understand the whole raw thing. This is to distinguish between: a = b + c; from <modify_expr, plus_expr, a, b, c> ASTs and RTL have something similar. The raw output gives you a different view. Not every data structure will have that distinction. > I'm afraid we can't really always rely on overloading. For example, > even though I often use debug_tree to examine a tree, probably even > more often I just use debug_generic_expr. When I write stuff into a > dump file, I rarely ever use the verbose variants but I certainly want > them to exist. And there might be other similar cases, like the > .*_brief dumping functions that are sometimes also used. Sure. The idea is to provide these variants via symbolic TDF_ style flags. For combinations that are very popular, we provide alternate entry names so that you don't have to be specifying the flags all the time. > Nevertheless, it would be great if we had fewer and consistent names > of dumping functions, even though perhaps not just three. It would > also be nice if all the file variants had an integer indent parameter > ;-) Ah, good idea. Thanks. Diego.
