The dump-pass patch with test case. David On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > Please review the attached two patches. > > In the first patch, gate functions are cleaned up. All the per > function legality checks are moved into the executor and the > optimization heuristic checks (optimize for size) remain in the > gators. These allow the the following overriding order: > >    common flags (O2, -ftree-vrp, -fgcse etc)   <---  compiler > heuristic (optimize for size/speed) <--- -fdisable/enable forcing pass > options  <--- legality check > > Testing under going. Ok for trunk? > > Thanks, > > David > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: >> Ok -- that sounds good. >> >> David >> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:00 PM, 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'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 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >