From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5567 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2011 11:22:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 5559 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2011 11:22:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:22:41 +0000 Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so3317620wwf.8 for ; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 04:22:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.199.21 with SMTP id eq21mr4790399wbb.101.1307359360614; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 04:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.37.152 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 04:22:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: -fdump-passes -fenable-xxx=func_name_list From: Richard Guenther To: Xinliang David Li Cc: GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/msg00389.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Xinliang David Li wrot= e: > 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. Those which use assembler names also will fail randomly dependent on how targets mangle their functions - so I think we have to drop all testcases. Also +/* A helper function to determine if an identifier is valid to + be an assembler name (better to use target specific hook). */ + +static bool +is_valid_assembler_name (const char *str) +{ + const char *p =3D str; + char c; + + c =3D *p; + if (!((c >=3D 'a' && c <=3D 'z') + || (c >=3D 'A' && c <=3D 'Z') + || *p =3D=3D '_')) + return false; + + p++; + while ((c =3D *p)) + { + if (!((c >=3D 'a' && c <=3D 'z') + || (c >=3D 'A' && c <=3D 'Z') + || (c >=3D '0' && c <=3D '9') + || *p =3D=3D '_')) + return false; + p++; + } + + return true; +} why all that complicated checks? Why not just check for p[0] in [^0-9] and re-structure the range parsing to switch between UIDs and assembler-names that way? Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > David > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Xinliang David Li wr= ote: >> 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 simpl= y, >>> 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 dependencies= 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 >>>> >>> >> >