See attached. Thanks, David On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: >> this is the patch that just removes the TODO_dump flag and forces it >> to dump. The original code cfun->last_verified = flags & >> TODO_verify_all looks weird -- depending on TODO_dump is set or not, >> the behavior of the update is different (when no other todo flags is >> set). >> >> Ok for trunk? > > -ENOPATCH. > > Richard. > >> David >> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Richard Guenther >>> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote: >>>>> The following is the patch that does the job. Most of the changes are >>>>> just  removing TODO_dump_func. The major change is in passes.c and >>>>> tree-pass.h. >>>>> >>>>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-start       <-- dump before TODO_start >>>>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-before    <-- dump before main pass after TODO_pass >>>>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-after       <-- dump after main pass before TODO_finish >>>>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-finish      <-- dump after TODO_finish >>>> >>>> Can we bikeshed a bit more about these names? >>> >>> These names may be less confusing: >>> >>> before_preparation >>> before >>> after >>> after_cleanup >>> >>> David >>> >>>> "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 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your patch doesn't really improve this but adds to the confusion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +  /* Override dump TODOs.  */ >>>>>>>> +  if (dump_file && (pass->todo_flags_finish & TODO_dump_func) >>>>>>>> +      && (dump_flags & TDF_BEFORE)) >>>>>>>> +    { >>>>>>>> +      pass->todo_flags_finish &= ~TODO_dump_func; >>>>>>>> +      pass->todo_flags_start |= TODO_dump_func; >>>>>>>> +    } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and certainly writing to pass is not ok.  And 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.  Currently some passes >>>>>> do not dump function bodies because they presumably do no IL >>>>>> modification.  But 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-finish. >>>>>> By default we'd want after todo-finish.  When 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >