On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:13:35PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> The names of split_before_sched2 ("split4") and split_before_regstack
> ("split3") do not reflect their insertion point in the sequence of passes,
> where split_before_regstack follows split_before_sched2. Reorder the code
> and rename the passes to reflect the reality.
Renaming them to other splitN doesn't help much :-/ Having stable names
is more important (some archs actually use these names), I'd say. But
it's hard to come up with shortish more meaningful names.
There is no real need for the N in splitN to be in order, but sure it
can be surprising otherwise.
> +bool
> +pass_split_before_regstack::gate (function *)
> +{
> +#if HAVE_ATTR_length && defined (STACK_REGS)
> + /* If flow2 creates new instructions which need splitting
> + and scheduling after reload is not done, they might not be
> + split until final which doesn't allow splitting
> + if HAVE_ATTR_length. */
> + return !enable_split_before_sched2 ();
> +#else
> + return false;
> +#endif
> +}
flow.c was deleted in 2006... Is this split still needed at all? If
so, change the comment please? :-)
Segher
