> Having said that, in my mind, what is confusing about the name > -fuse-caller-save, is that in fact the caller-save registers are already > used in register allocation. It's just that they're used across calls > without the need to save them, but > -fuse-caller-save-across-calls-without-saving-if-possible is not such a > good option name.
Agreed. > Another thing that - in my mind - is confusing is that there's an option > fcaller-saves which controls behaviour for caller-save registers: > - for -fno-caller-saves, caller-save registers are not used across calls > - for -fcaller-saves, caller-save registers are used across calls > The name is similar to -fuse-caller-save, and it won't be clear from just > the names what the difference is. OK, so the existing -fcaller-saves is in fact -fuse-caller-saves, which means that we should really find a better name for yours. :-) > I've pondered the name -fipa-ira, but I rejected that earlier because that > might suggest actual register allocation at the interprocedural scope, > while this is only register allocation at the scope of a single procedure, > taking some interprocedural information into account. Furthermore, it's not > only ira that uses the interprocedural information. > > So, let's a generate a list of option names. > -fuse-caller-save > -fuse-call-clobbered > -fprecise-call-clobbers > -foptimize-call-clobbers > -fprune-call-clobbers > -freduce-call-clobbers > -fcall-clobbers-ipa > > Any preferences, alternatives? Given the existing -fcaller-saves, I'd keep "caller-saves" in the name, so something along the lines of -foptimize-caller-saves or -fipa-caller-saves. -- Eric Botcazou
