From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6765 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2011 09:06:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 6755 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jun 2011 09:06:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-wy0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:06:16 +0000 Received: by wye20 with SMTP id 20so221817wye.20 for ; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 02:06:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.32.84 with SMTP id b20mr7228025wbd.105.1307523975278; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 02:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.37.152 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 02:06:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110601231202.224188ad.basile@starynkevitch.net> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Dump before flag From: Richard Guenther To: Xinliang David Li Cc: GCC Patches , Diego Novillo 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/msg00623.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Xinliang David Li wrot= e: > The following is the patch that does the job. Most of the changes are > just =A0removing TODO_dump_func. The major change is in passes.c and > tree-pass.h. > > -fdump-xxx-yyy-start =A0 =A0 =A0 <-- dump before TODO_start > -fdump-xxx-yyy-before =A0 =A0<-- dump before main pass after TODO_pass > -fdump-xxx-yyy-after =A0 =A0 =A0 <-- dump after main pass before TODO_fin= ish > -fdump-xxx-yyy-finish =A0 =A0 =A0<-- dump after TODO_finish Can we bikeshed a bit more about these names? "start" and "before" have no semantical difference to me ... as the dump before TODO_start of a pass and the dump after TODO_finish of the previous pass are identical (hopefully ;)), maybe merge those into a -between flag? If you'd specify it for a single pass then you'd get both -start and -finish (using your naming scheme). Splitting that dump(s) to different files then might make sense (not sure about the name to use). Note that I find it extremely useful to have dumping done in chronological order - splitting some of it to different files destroys this, especially a dump after TODO_start or before TODO_finish should appear in the same file (or we could also start splitting individual TODO_ output into sub-dump-files). I guess what would be nice instread would be a fancy dump-file viewer that could show diffs, hide things like SCEV output, etc. I suppose a patch that removes the dump TODO and unconditionally dumps at the current point would be a good preparation for this enhancing patch. Richard. > The default is 'finish'. > > Does it look ok? > > Thanks, > > David > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Xinliang David Li w= rote: >>>> >>>> Your patch doesn't really improve this but adds to the confusion. >>>> >>>> + =A0/* Override dump TODOs. =A0*/ >>>> + =A0if (dump_file && (pass->todo_flags_finish & TODO_dump_func) >>>> + =A0 =A0 =A0&& (dump_flags & TDF_BEFORE)) >>>> + =A0 =A0{ >>>> + =A0 =A0 =A0pass->todo_flags_finish &=3D ~TODO_dump_func; >>>> + =A0 =A0 =A0pass->todo_flags_start |=3D TODO_dump_func; >>>> + =A0 =A0} >>>> >>>> and certainly writing to pass is not ok. =A0And the TDF_BEFORE flag >>>> looks misplaced as it controls TODOs, not dumping behavior. >>>> Yes, it's a mess right now but the above looks like a hack ontop >>>> of that mess (maybe because of it, but well ...). >>>> >>> >>> How about removing dumping TODO completely -- this can be done easily >>> -- I don't understand why pass wants extra control on the dumping if >>> user already asked for dumping -- it is annoying to see empty IR dump >>> for a pass when I want to see it. >>> >>>> At least I would have expected to also get the dump after the >>>> pass, not only the one before it with this dump flag. >>>> >>>> Now, why can't you look at the previous pass output for the >>>> before-dump (as I do usually)? >>> >>> 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. =A0Currently some pa= sses >> do not dump function bodies because they presumably do no IL >> modification. =A0But this is certainly the minority (and some passes do = not >> dump bodies even though they are modifying the IL ...). >> >> So I'd say we should by default dump function bodies. >> >> Note that there are three useful dumping positions (maybe four), >> before todo-start, after todo-start, before todo-finish and after todo-f= inish. >> By default we'd want after todo-finish. =A0When we no longer dump via >> a TODO then we could indeed use dump-flags to control this >> (maybe -original for the body before todo-start). >> >> What to others think? >> >> Richard. >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Richard. >>>> >>> >> >