From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-293862-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 24689 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2011 16:51:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 24680 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jun 2011 16:51:37 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:51:22 +0000
Received: from hpaq7.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq7.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.7])	by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p57GpKWo006537	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:51:21 -0700
Received: from gyf2 (gyf2.prod.google.com [10.243.50.66])	by hpaq7.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p57GoYaB014948	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT)	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:51:19 -0700
Received: by gyf2 with SMTP id 2so2973485gyf.39        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.59.15 with SMTP id h15mr5782521yba.73.1307465479244; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.26.21 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimRE8HNRZax+g6Fu714drsoUazAoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTim89r_RsLCqYjuWZMA=9Lic_4UXThZ2JJM--ajYb8epew@mail.gmail.com>	<20110601231202.224188ad.basile@starynkevitch.net>	<BANLkTikmNfvaUGopJ3OxQjHXYVx-_vyd5zgfo4DYLWWpKt_Dew@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTi=ndrCJGuPMqb5Hth=MfQEHTNeL0Q@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTik57D433ch9P9oH4=5xHr=J78JQAHdrsCf8Nuj8WUGMxQ@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTin6DK8LZEq-TbjrqWKD1oJXJG1xeA@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimRE8HNRZax+g6Fu714drsoUazAoA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:51:00 -0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=78w1_N+c-PGgV1K+m6C5+i6jJZW-pinvicXDitiq6dw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Dump before flag
From: Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>
To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,        GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00547.txt.bz2

Any suggestions on the dump position specification string, before and
after is not enough. How about

start, before, after, and finish?

I.e.

-fdump-tree-pre-start --> dump IR before TODO_start of PRE pass
-fdump-tree-pre-before --> dump IR just before PRE after its TODO start finishes
-fdump-tree-pre-after --> dump IR just after PRE
-fdump-tree-pre-finish --> dump it after TODO_finish of PRE?

Thanks,

David


On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 02:36, Richard Guenther
> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> For one thing, you need to either remember what is the previous pass,
>>> or dump all passes which for large files can take very long time. Even
>>> with all the dumps, you will need to eyeballing to find the previous
>>> pass which may or may not have the IR dumped.
>>>
>>> How about removing dump TODO?
>>
>> Yeah, I think this would go in the right direction.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> Diego.
>