From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 127224 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2019 16:17:44 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 127216 invoked by uid 89); 29 Sep 2019 16:17:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-14.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=caps X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:17:42 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x8TGHdCM005170; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 11:17:39 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id x8TGHbAr005167; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 11:17:37 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:17:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Xiong Hu Luo Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, wschmidt@linux.ibm.com, luoxhu@linux.ibm.com, hubicka@ucw.cz, mliska@suse.cz Subject: Re: [RFC] Come up with ipa passes introduction in gccint documentation Message-ID: <20190929161737.GO9749@gate.crashing.org> References: <20190929075637.79741-1-luoxhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190929075637.79741-1-luoxhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-09/txt/msg01687.txt.bz2 Hi! Just some editorial comments... The idea of the patch is fine IMHO. (I am not maintainer of this, take all my comments for what they are). On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 02:56:37AM -0500, Xiong Hu Luo wrote: > To simplify development, the GCC pass manager differentiates > -between normal inter-procedural passes and small inter-procedural > -passes. A @emph{small inter-procedural pass} > +between normal inter-procedural passes @pxref{All regular ipa passes} > +and small inter-procedural passes@pxref{All small ipa passes} > +& @pxref{All late ipa passes}. A @emph{small inter-procedural pass} > (@code{SIMPLE_IPA_PASS}) is a pass that does To simplify development, the GCC pass manager differentiates between normal inter-procedural passes @pxref{All regular IPA passes}, simple inter-procedural passes@pxref{All simple IPA passes}, and late inter-procedural passes @pxref{All late IPA passes}. A @emph{simple inter-procedural pass} (@code{SIMPLE_IPA_PASS}) is a pass that does Don't use "&", write out the word. IPA is an abbreviation, not a word, so it should be written in all caps. Enumerations are written like this, that, and something else. Is there a reason you used "small" instead of "simple"? > diff --git a/gcc/doc/passes.texi b/gcc/doc/passes.texi > index 6edb9a0bfb7..0b6cf73469c 100644 > --- a/gcc/doc/passes.texi > +++ b/gcc/doc/passes.texi > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ where near complete. > * Gimplification pass:: The bits are turned into something we can optimize. > * Pass manager:: Sequencing the optimization passes. > * Tree SSA passes:: Optimizations on a high-level representation. > +* IPA passes:: Optimizations on scope of intra-procedual. > * RTL passes:: Optimizations on a low-level representation. I'd just say "Intra-procedural optimizations." And maybe order this differntly? IPA, SSA, RTL, the same order as they run, and this also keeps the "high/low-level representation" together, which reads a bit better. The rest should be worked out a bit more, but looks promising. Did you test this with both "make info" and "make pdf" (and checked the result of those of course :-) )? Thanks, Segher