[llvm-dev] Renaming passes

[Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:13 AM Arthur Eubanks via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As part of new pass manager work, I've been trying to get something like
> `opt -foo` working under the NPM, where `foo` is the name of a pass.
>
> In the past there's been no reason to keep the names of passes consistent
> between NPM and legacy PM. But now there is a reason to make them match, so
> that we don't have to touch every single test that uses `opt`.
>

What's the goal here? Does it include removing the -passes option used by
the NPM?


>
> There are a couple of names that don't match though, for example the
> "basic alias analysis" pass is named "basicaa" under the legacy PM
> INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN(BasicAAWrapperPass, "basicaa",
>                       "Basic Alias Analysis (stateless AA impl)", true,
> true)
> but named "basic-aa" under the NPM
> FUNCTION_ALIAS_ANALYSIS("basic-aa", BasicAA())
> . Almost all the other AA passes have a dash in them so I think it makes
> sense to rename "basicaa" -> "basic-aa".
>
> Is there accepted wisdom on renaming pass names? Is a pass name a stable
> interface? When is it ok to rename a pass? If there are 800 usages of a
> flag, should I rename them atomically?
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200625/43336fce/attachment.html>