From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9324 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2011 17:25:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 9256 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2011 17:25:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 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) (74.125.121.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:25:17 +0000 Received: from hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.5]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p55HPFrg029206 for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 10:25:15 -0700 Received: from ywp31 (ywp31.prod.google.com [10.192.16.31]) by hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p55HPDWU022206 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 10:25:14 -0700 Received: by ywp31 with SMTP id 31so1825841ywp.17 for ; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 10:25:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.176.19 with SMTP id y19mr3538908ybe.358.1307294713145; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 10:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.26.21 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 10:25:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:25:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: -fdump-passes -fenable-xxx=func_name_list From: Xinliang David Li To: Richard Guenther Cc: GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true 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/msg00331.txt.bz2 Is this one ok? Thanks, David On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Xinliang David Li wro= te: > This is the version of the patch that walks through pass lists. > > Ok with this one? > > 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >