From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19705 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2011 16:43:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 19694 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jun 2011 16:43:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 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; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:43:31 +0000 Received: from hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.2]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p57GhTGB003297 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:43:29 -0700 Received: from yie16 (yie16.prod.google.com [10.243.66.16]) by hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p57GgJvr015775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:43:28 -0700 Received: by yie16 with SMTP id 16so1749187yie.1 for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:43:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.31.4 with SMTP id e4mr5629623ybe.127.1307465008118; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.142.15 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:43:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110601231202.224188ad.basile@starynkevitch.net> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Dump before flag From: Diego Novillo To: Richard Guenther Cc: Xinliang David Li , GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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/msg00545.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 02:36, Richard Guenther wrote: >> 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. Agreed. Diego.