From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17803 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2011 14:32:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 17795 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2011 14:32:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:32:07 +0000 Received: (qmail 2831 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2011 14:32:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (froydnj@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 12 Apr 2011 14:32:05 -0000 Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:32:00 -0000 From: Nathan Froyd To: Richard Guenther Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] add statistics counting to postreload, copy-rename, and math-opts Message-ID: <20110412143205.GG23480@codesourcery.com> References: <20110412141626.GF23480@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00890.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 04:27:01PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote: > > It's a shame more passes don't make use of the statistics_* > > infrastructure.  This patch is a step towards rectifying that and adds > > statistics_counter_event calls to passes mentioned in $SUBJECT. > > postreload-gcse already tracked the stats for the dump file and so only > > needs the statistics_counter_event calls; the other passes needed to be > > taught about the statistics also. > > Ok if there are no complaints within 24h. I actually have a local patch > adding many of these which I use whenever fiddling with the pass pipeline ... > (attached). Thanks. I may go twiddle that patch to do something similar to mine and submit that. Do you use your patch for checking that the same set of optimizations get performed, then? I'm interested in using the statistics for identifying passes that don't buy us much across a wide variety of codebases. (Suggestions for suitable ones welcome!) -Nathan