public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: -fdump-passes -fenable-xxx=func_name_list
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:10:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=B5_KxpwRo9tTjy69VwWMcJj=QmQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin_8-jaTqSnBMVCZXYnU+amieqWrpO7zQas8a=2bWrn=g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Richard Guenther
> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>> 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 = NULL;
>> +  tree save_fndecl = current_function_decl;
>> +
>> +  fprintf (stderr, "MAX_UID = %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.
>
> Ok.
>
>
>>
>> +  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.
>
> 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 = override_gate_status (pass, current_function_decl, is_on);
>>
>> ?  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).
>
> As we discussed, currently some pass gate functions depend on per node
> information -- those checks need to be pushed into execute functions.
> I would like to clean those up later -- at which time, the push/pop
> can be removed.

I'd like to do it the other way around, first clean up the gate functions then
drop in this patch without the cfun push/pop.  The revised patch looks ok
to me with the cfun push/pop removed.

Thanks,
Richard.

>>
>> 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.
>
> This is needed as the pass->name is not the canonicalized name (i.e.,
> not with number suffix etc), so the extra mapping from id to
> normalized name is needed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Richard Guenther
>>>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Richard Guenther
>>>>>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The following patch implements the a new option that dumps gcc PASS
>>>>>>>> configuration. The sample output is attached.  There 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.  Why not simply,
>>>>>>> at a _single_ place, walk the pass tree?  Instead of doing pieces of it
>>>>>>> at pass execution time when it's not already dumped - that really looks
>>>>>>> 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 dependencies 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 point
>>>>> you will not get a complete pass list.  I suppose optimize attributes might
>>>>> also confuse output.  Your solution might not be that intrusive
>>>>> but it is still ugly.  I don't see 1) as an issue, for 2) you can just 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_speed ()
>>>>> 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.  I 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 individual
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-06-07 10:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <BANLkTikXRUTmZZokg4OtJA5fBrWUG+7yZux3=CLDBox1Q+Qhtw@mail.gmail.com>
2011-06-01  8:51 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-01 16:17   ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-01 17:24     ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-05 17:25       ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-06 11:22       ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-06 15:54         ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-06 15:59           ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-06 19:21         ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-07 10:11           ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-01 19:29     ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-01 19:29     ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-01 19:46       ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-02  7:13         ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-05 17:25           ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-06 11:38           ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-06 16:00             ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-06 19:23               ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-07 10:10               ` Richard Guenther [this message]
2011-06-07 16:24                 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-07 19:09                   ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-07 20:39                     ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-08  9:06                       ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-08  8:54                     ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-09 22:16                     ` H.J. Lu
2011-06-09 22:24                       ` Carrot Wei
2011-06-09 22:32                       ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-09 22:51                       ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-09 23:28                         ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-10  9:10                           ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-10 16:37                             ` Xinliang David Li

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='BANLkTi=B5_KxpwRo9tTjy69VwWMcJj=QmQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
    --cc=davidxl@google.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).