From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 72627 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2019 03:05:44 -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 72618 invoked by uid 89); 1 Oct 2019 03:05:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=explanations, mistakes 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; Tue, 01 Oct 2019 03:05:42 +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 x9135e7C008783; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 22:05:40 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id x9135bNo008782; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 22:05:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 03:05:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: luoxhu Cc: Xiong Hu Luo , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, wschmidt@linux.ibm.com, hubicka@ucw.cz, mliska@suse.cz Subject: Re: [RFC] Come up with ipa passes introduction in gccint documentation Message-ID: <20191001030537.GV9749@gate.crashing.org> References: <20190929075637.79741-1-luoxhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20190929161737.GO9749@gate.crashing.org> <6ea75892-7462-d992-ea79-ea55d94d62a6@linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6ea75892-7462-d992-ea79-ea55d94d62a6@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-10/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 Hi! On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 09:47:13AM +0800, luoxhu wrote: > On 2019/9/30 00:17, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > The updated output will be as below in gccint.pdf, references are valid to jump over > (suppose should be the same in info?): > > Did you test this with both "make info" and "make pdf" (and checked the > > result of those of course :-) )? The reason I ask is, there often are little mistakes (in markup for example) that are obvious in either rendered output or in the info reader (but not (always) in both). Not just the content, also the way things are laid out, and what makes a link to what, etc. > To simplify development, the GCC pass manager differentiates between normal interprocedural > passes see Section 9.4.2 [All regular IPA passes], page 127, small inter-procedural > passes see Section 9.4.1 [All small IPA passes], page 127 and late inter-procedural passes see > Section 9.4.3 [All late IPA passes], page 128. A small inter-procedural pass (SIMPLE_IPA_ It is weird to have a different order here than the order of the actual sections, for example. > The reason for "small" is in passes.def, it is used as > INSERT_PASSES_AFTER (all_small_ipa_passes). And in cgraphunit.c: > ipa_passes (void) > { > ... > execute_ipa_pass_list (passes->all_small_ipa_passes); > ... > } > > So is it OK to use small here? I don't mind if it is "small" or "simple", but we probably should use the same name everywhere in the manual (or, if we use both names, explain that they are the same thing). There are many cases where the internal name (in the GCC source code, in pass names, etc.) is different from the external name (in the manuals, in option names, etc.) It is hard to decide what to use in the internals manual then :-) Maybe the internal name should just be changed? > One more thing to worry about is my poor English It's perfectly good enough that we understand what you are saying :-) > and I am not familiar with all the > 30+ IPA passes so not easy to extract exact explanations for them. Yeah... It's a good start to just have stubs for them, I guess? Makes it obvious things need to be filled out, so hopefully people will :-) Segher