From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29780 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2011 15:54:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 29730 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2011 15:54:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 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) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:53:48 +0000 Received: from wpaz29.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz29.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.93]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p56Frlw2001616 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:53:47 -0700 Received: from gxk21 (gxk21.prod.google.com [10.202.11.21]) by wpaz29.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p56FrkIW007507 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:53:46 -0700 Received: by gxk21 with SMTP id 21so1510306gxk.19 for ; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 08:53:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.59.15 with SMTP id h15mr4500961yba.73.1307375626037; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 08:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.26.21 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:53:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:54:00 -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/msg00421.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Xinliang David Li wr= ote: >> The attached is the split #1 patch that enhances -fenable/disable. >> >> Ok after testing? > > I expect the testcases will be quite fragile, so while I appreciate > test coverage for new options I think we should go without those > that involve any kind of UID. =A0Those which use assembler names > also will fail randomly dependent on how targets mangle their > functions - so I think we have to drop all testcases. Ok -- how about keeping tests with large uid range, and assembler name for x86? A feature without testing is just to easy to break without being noticed. > > Also > > +/* A helper function to determine if an identifier is valid to > + =A0 be an assembler name (better to use target specific hook). =A0*/ > + > +static bool > +is_valid_assembler_name (const char *str) > +{ > + =A0const char *p =3D str; > + =A0char c; > + > + =A0c =3D *p; > + =A0if (!((c >=3D 'a' && c <=3D 'z') > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|| (c >=3D 'A' && c <=3D 'Z') > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|| *p =3D=3D '_')) > + =A0 =A0return false; > + > + =A0p++; > + =A0while ((c =3D *p)) > + =A0 { > + =A0 =A0 if (!((c >=3D 'a' && c <=3D 'z') > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 || (c >=3D 'A' && c <=3D 'Z') > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 || (c >=3D '0' && c <=3D '9') > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 || *p =3D=3D '_')) > + =A0 =A0 =A0 return false; > + =A0 =A0 p++; > + =A0 } > + > + =A0return true; > +} > > why all that complicated checks? =A0Why not just check for p[0] > in [^0-9] and re-structure the range parsing to switch between > UIDs and assembler-names that way? Ok. David > > Thanks, > Richard. > >> Thanks, >> David >> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Xinliang David Li w= rote: >>> 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 simp= ly, >>>> at a _single_ place, walk the pass tree? =A0Instead 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 dependencie= s on cfun >>> >>> The proposed solutions IMHO is not that intrusive -- just three hooks >>> to do the dumping and tracking indentation. >>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >