From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-293865-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 28691 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2011 17:01:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 28676 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jun 2011 17:01:47 -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,TW_CF,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 17:01:32 +0000
Received: from kpbe18.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe18.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.82])	by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p57H1VDs001426	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:01:31 -0700
Received: from yxn35 (yxn35.prod.google.com [10.190.4.99])	by kpbe18.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p57Gx3Tw000988	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT)	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:01:30 -0700
Received: by yxn35 with SMTP id 35so2177537yxn.15        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.31.4 with SMTP id e4mr5643966ybe.127.1307466090209; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.142.15 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=78w1_N+c-PGgV1K+m6C5+i6jJZW-pinvicXDitiq6dw@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>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:01:00 -0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTinroLbnQj+LnSCjhZCoZoeDFxc0aQ@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
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/msg00550.txt.bz2

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 09:51, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> 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?  The TODO_start
actions don't affect the IL, in general.

> -fdump-tree-pre-after --> dump IR just after PRE
> -fdump-tree-pre-finish --> dump it after TODO_finish of PRE?

This would be to catch changes like cfg cleanup and SSA update
actions, right?  Sure.

I don't mind too much about the naming.  Anything that makes sense is
good with me.


Diego.