[PATCH] D96101: [opt][NewPM] Add a --print-passes flag to print all available passes

[Bjorn Pettersson via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

bjope added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/Other/print-passes.ll:6
+; CHECK: Module analyses:
+; CHECK: no-op-module
+; CHECK: Module alias analyses:
----------------
aeubanks wrote:
> bjope wrote:
> > Should analysis passes perhaps be printed as require<name>?
> Technically `require<foo>` is a pass that just runs `foo`, so that's separate. I added in the `--help` for `-passes` that you can specify `require<foo>`.
But you can't for example do `-passes="aa"` so you need to write `-passes="require<aa>"`. If comparing with the print passes they are listed as for example `"print<loops>"`. So it is a bit inconsistent (or maybe I am missing something).

One idea was to use the output from `-print-passes` in scripts to randomly generate strings to use in `-passes`. It will be slightly more complicated if one need to parse the headings in the output to find which passes that need an enclosing `require<>`.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D96101/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D96101