Re: pretty printing trends and questions

2008-09-08 Thread Basile STARYNKEVITCH
Diego Novillo wrote: On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:04, Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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). I wouldn't oppose a pat

Re: pretty printing trends and questions

2008-09-08 Thread Diego Novillo
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:04, Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 i

Re: pretty printing trends and questions

2008-09-08 Thread Basile STARYNKEVITCH
Diego Novillo wrote: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 prin

Re: pretty printing trends and questions

2008-09-08 Thread Diego Novillo
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:13, Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello All, > > 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 (lik