On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:33 AM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 00:08 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:18 PM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > gcc/ >> > >> > Explicitly number the instances of passes within passes.def. >> > >> > This is needed by a subsequent patch so that we can create >> > fields within the pipeline class for each pass instance (to help >> > locate pass instances when debugging). >> > >> > * passes.c (NEXT_PASS_NUM): Define. >> > >> > * passes.def (NEXT_PASS, NEXT_PASS_NUM): Replace uses of >> > NEXT_PASS on passes that have multiple instances with uses of >> > NEXT_PASS_NUM. >> >> >> I don't like this patch at all. Mainly because the numbers can get >> out of sync very quickly especially when it comes to internal versions >> of the compiler where it is normal to reorder passes and add another >> pass a few times. > > How would you feel about a "passes.def.in" and having that be what's in > svn, with some kind of preprocessing step that builds a passes.def from > it? That way we get the flexibility of before, but gain the ability I'm > looking for to make a class holding the passes, and have easy access in > gdb to the various instances of the class (rather than just the last > instance of each that was created).
That would work and would be ok with me. > If so, what tools are blessed for usage at build time? (I'd prefer > Python, but I don't think that's a build-time dep yet). So far awk and shell and C programming are the blessed processing tools. Awk in this case seems like the best for this though. I don't think Python is a good solution only because it does add another build dependency that is not there already though I would not complain about it if it gets added. Thanks, Andrew Pinski
