From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4004 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2011 09:04:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 3990 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jun 2011 09:04:10 -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-wy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-wy0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:03:52 +0000 Received: by wye20 with SMTP id 20so1987266wye.20 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:03:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.32.84 with SMTP id b20mr1825633wbd.105.1307696631514; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.37.152 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:03:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: -fdump-passes -fenable-xxx=func_name_list From: Richard Guenther To: Xinliang David Li Cc: GCC Patches , "H.J. Lu" 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/msg00808.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Xinliang David Li wr= ote: > Patch is temporally rolled back. > > Richard, looks like deeper pass manager cleanup is needed -- I would > like to delay that. For now, this leaves us two choices -- 1) do cfunc > push/pop, or 2) do pass dump while executing. None of them is ideal, > but safe enough. Well. It seems we should take a step back and look at the whole picture and try to figure out how it should look like in the end (maybe do that in London). For now I prefer 1) over 2). Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > > David > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Xinliang David Li wr= ote: >> Though I can not reproduce it, it might be related to what Richard >> mentioned in the review -- The TODO's are executed though the pass is >> not. This opened up a can of worm -- I will revert the patches for >> now. >> >> David >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Xinliang David Li = wrote: >>>> Please review the attached two patches. >>>> >>>> In the first patch, gate functions are cleaned up. All the per >>>> function legality checks are moved into the executor and the >>>> optimization heuristic checks (optimize for size) remain in the >>>> gators. These allow the the following overriding order: >>>> >>>> =A0 =A0common flags (O2, -ftree-vrp, -fgcse etc) =A0 <--- =A0compiler >>>> heuristic (optimize for size/speed) <--- -fdisable/enable forcing pass >>>> options =A0<--- legality check >>>> >>>> Testing under going. Ok for trunk? >>>> >>> >>> This caused: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D49350 >>> >>> -- >>> H.J. >>> >> >