On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
If the mechanism is a proliferation of mdreorg passes in every place we want a target-specific pass, that is fine with me. Ian
