From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6386 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2011 16:15:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 6299 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jun 2011 16:15:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 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; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:14:45 +0000 Received: from kpbe19.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe19.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.83]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p5AGEhCY030209 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:14:43 -0700 Received: from vws10 (vws10.prod.google.com [10.241.21.138]) by kpbe19.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p5AGEfe9026500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:14:41 -0700 Received: by vws10 with SMTP id 10so2977887vws.2 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:14:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.79.10 with SMTP id g10mr3566982ybl.301.1307722481079; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.26.21 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:14:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: -fdump-passes -fenable-xxx=func_name_list From: Xinliang David Li To: Richard Guenther Cc: GCC Patches , "H.J. Lu" 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/msg00858.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Xinliang David Li = wrote: >> Patch is temporally rolled back. >> >> Richard, looks like deeper pass manager cleanup is needed -- I would >> like to delay that. For now, this leaves us two choices -- 1) do cfunc >> push/pop, or 2) do pass dump while executing. None of them is ideal, >> but safe enough. > > Well. =A0It seems we should take a step back and look at the whole picture > and try to figure out how it should look like in the end (maybe do that > in London). > > For now I prefer 1) over 2). That sounds good. For now I will check in 1) (as it has no impact on default behavior) and do pass clean up later. I won't be in London for discussion, but you let me know how the discussion goes. Thanks, David > > Thanks, > Richard. > >> Thanks, >> >> David >> >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Xinliang David Li w= rote: >>> Though I can not reproduce it, it might be related to what Richard >>> mentioned in the review -- The TODO's are executed though the pass is >>> not. This opened up a can of worm -- I will revert the patches for >>> now. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>> 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: >>>>> >>>>> =A0 =A0common flags (O2, -ftree-vrp, -fgcse etc) =A0 <--- =A0compiler >>>>> heuristic (optimize for size/speed) <--- -fdisable/enable forcing pass >>>>> options =A0<--- legality check >>>>> >>>>> Testing under going. Ok for trunk? >>>>> >>>> >>>> This caused: >>>> >>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D49350 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> H.J. >>>> >>> >> >