From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-293869-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3925 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2011 17:26:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 3884 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jun 2011 17:26:45 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 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; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:26:20 +0000
Received: from kpbe13.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe13.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.77])	by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p57HQJdD004084	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:26:19 -0700
Received: from ywo7 (ywo7.prod.google.com [10.192.15.7])	by kpbe13.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p57HOYO7002777	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT)	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:26:18 -0700
Received: by ywo7 with SMTP id 7so2867692ywo.11        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.31.4 with SMTP id e4mr5671547ybe.127.1307467577696; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.142.15 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=TLLE2PWwkZDygFidftZ2OJBw8vOEDZkZi0vM3rbbBJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTim89r_RsLCqYjuWZMA=9Lic_4UXThZ2JJM--ajYb8epew@mail.gmail.com>	<20110601231202.224188ad.basile@starynkevitch.net>	<BANLkTikmNfvaUGopJ3OxQjHXYVx-_vyd5zgfo4DYLWWpKt_Dew@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTi=ndrCJGuPMqb5Hth=MfQEHTNeL0Q@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTik57D433ch9P9oH4=5xHr=J78JQAHdrsCf8Nuj8WUGMxQ@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTin6DK8LZEq-TbjrqWKD1oJXJG1xeA@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimRE8HNRZax+g6Fu714drsoUazAoA@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTi=78w1_N+c-PGgV1K+m6C5+i6jJZW-pinvicXDitiq6dw@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTinroLbnQj+LnSCjhZCoZoeDFxc0aQ@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTi=TLLE2PWwkZDygFidftZ2OJBw8vOEDZkZi0vM3rbbBJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:26:00 -0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTimbdQ6RuFfb6xe5RD5ehSSDrFe6Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Dump before flag
From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>
To: Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,        GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00554.txt.bz2

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:06, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrot=
e:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 09:51, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wro=
te:
>>> Any suggestions on the dump position specification string, before and
>>> after is not enough. How about
>>>
>>> start, before, after, and finish?
>>>
>>> I.e.
>>>
>>> -fdump-tree-pre-start --> dump IR before TODO_start of PRE pass
>>> -fdump-tree-pre-before --> dump IR just before PRE after its TODO start=
 finishes
>>
>> What would be the difference between these two? =C2=A0The TODO_start
>> actions don't affect the IL, in general.
>
> But by design, it can right?

Hmm, now that I think of it, yes it can.  There are some TODOs that
may modify the IL.  For instance, in PRE we split or critical edges
before the pass starts (I think we still do, not sure).


Diego.