From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2341 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2011 11:38:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 2329 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2011 11:38:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,TW_FN,TW_TM X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:38:27 +0000 Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so3330053wwf.8 for ; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 04:38:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.209.146 with SMTP id gg18mr4935855wbb.71.1307360306397; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 04:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.37.152 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 04:38:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: -fdump-passes -fenable-xxx=func_name_list From: Richard Guenther To: Xinliang David Li Cc: GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2011-06/txt/msg00391.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Xinliang David Li wrot= e: > This is the version of the patch that walks through pass lists. > > Ok with this one? +/* Dump all optimization passes. */ + +void +dump_passes (void) +{ + struct cgraph_node *n, *node =3D NULL; + tree save_fndecl =3D current_function_decl; + + fprintf (stderr, "MAX_UID =3D %d\n", cgraph_max_uid); this isn't accurate info - cloning can cause more cgraph nodes to appear (it also looks completely unrelated to dump_passes ...). Please drop it. + create_pass_tab(); + gcc_assert (pass_tab); you have quite many asserts of this kind - we don't want them when the previous stmt as in this case indicates everything is ok. + push_cfun (DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (node->decl)); this has side-effects, I'm not sure we want this here. Why do you need it? Probably because of + is_really_on =3D override_gate_status (pass, current_function_decl, is_o= n); ? But that is dependent on the function given which should have no effect (unless it is overridden globally in which case override_gate_status and friends should deal with a NULL cfun). I don't understand why you need another table mapping pass to name when pass->name is available and the info is trivially re-constructible. Thanks, Richard. > David > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Xinliang David Li w= rote: >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Xinliang David Li = wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Richard Guenther >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: >>>>>> The following patch implements the a new option that dumps gcc PASS >>>>>> configuration. The sample output is attached. =A0There is one >>>>>> limitation: some placeholder passes that are named with '*xxx' are >>>>>> note registered thus they are not listed. They are not important as >>>>>> they can not be turned on/off anyway. >>>>>> >>>>>> The patch also enhanced -fenable-xxx and -fdisable-xx to allow a list >>>>>> of function assembler names to be specified. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok for trunk? >>>>> >>>>> Please split the patch. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not too happy how you dump the pass configuration. =A0Why not sim= ply, >>>>> at a _single_ place, walk the pass tree? =A0Instead of doing pieces o= f it >>>>> at pass execution time when it's not already dumped - that really loo= ks >>>>> gross. >>>> >>>> Yes, that was the original plan -- but it has problems >>>> 1) the dumper needs to know the root pass lists -- which can change >>>> frequently -- it can be a long term maintanance burden; >>>> 2) the centralized dumper needs to be done after option processing >>>> 3) not sure if gate functions have any side effects or have dependenci= es on cfun >>>> >>>> The proposed solutions IMHO is not that intrusive -- just three hooks >>>> to do the dumping and tracking indentation. >>> >>> Well, if you have a CU that is empty or optimized to nothing at some po= int >>> you will not get a complete pass list. =A0I suppose optimize attributes= might >>> also confuse output. =A0Your solution might not be that intrusive >>> but it is still ugly. =A0I don't see 1) as an issue, for 2) you can jus= t call the >>> dumping from toplev_main before calling do_compile (), 3) gate functions >>> shouldn't have side-effects, but as they could gate on optimize_for_spe= ed () >>> your option summary output will be bogus anyway. >>> >>> So - what is the output intended for if it isn't reliable? >> >> This needs to be cleaned up at some point -- the gate function should >> behave the same for all functions and per-function decisions need to >> be pushed down to the executor body. =A0I will try to rework the patch >> as you suggested to see if there are problems. >> >> David >> >> >>> >>> Richard. >>> >>>>> >>>>> The documentation should also link this option to the -fenable/disable >>>>> options as obviously the pass names in that dump are those to be >>>>> used for those flags (and not readily available anywhere else). >>>> >>>> Ok. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I also think that it would be way more useful to note in the individu= al >>>>> dump files the functions (at the place they would usually appear) that >>>>> have the pass explicitly enabled/disabled. >>>> >>>> Ok -- for ipa passes or tree/rtl passes where all functions are >>>> explicitly disabled. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Richard. >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >