This is the patch with max id removed. Thanks, David On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Xinliang David Li 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 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 wrote: >>>> 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.  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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >