From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>
Subject: Re: Dump before flag
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:28:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinsjy_a0dP_j5vOP2KV6QvjO90mdw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinqrnqeVYDRT1HM+kzEZHtpA2oV0an1uzL5vJn8Oy4A6Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> this is the patch that just removes the TODO_dump flag and forces it
> to dump. The original code cfun->last_verified = flags &
> TODO_verify_all looks weird -- depending on TODO_dump is set or not,
> the behavior of the update is different (when no other todo flags is
> set).
>
> Ok for trunk?
-ENOPATCH.
Richard.
> David
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Richard Guenther
>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>> The following is the patch that does the job. Most of the changes are
>>>> just removing TODO_dump_func. The major change is in passes.c and
>>>> tree-pass.h.
>>>>
>>>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-start <-- dump before TODO_start
>>>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-before <-- dump before main pass after TODO_pass
>>>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-after <-- dump after main pass before TODO_finish
>>>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-finish <-- dump after TODO_finish
>>>
>>> Can we bikeshed a bit more about these names?
>>
>> These names may be less confusing:
>>
>> before_preparation
>> before
>> after
>> after_cleanup
>>
>> David
>>
>>> "start" and "before"
>>> have no semantical difference to me ... as the dump before TODO_start
>>> of a pass and the dump after TODO_finish of the previous pass are
>>> identical (hopefully ;)), maybe merge those into a -between flag?
>>> If you'd specify it for a single pass then you'd get both -start and -finish
>>> (using your naming scheme). Splitting that dump(s) to different files
>>> then might make sense (not sure about the name to use).
>>>
>>> Note that I find it extremely useful to have dumping done in
>>> chronological order - splitting some of it to different files destroys
>>> this, especially a dump after TODO_start or before TODO_finish
>>> should appear in the same file (or we could also start splitting
>>> individual TODO_ output into sub-dump-files). I guess what would
>>> be nice instread would be a fancy dump-file viewer that could
>>> show diffs, hide things like SCEV output, etc.
>>>
>>> I suppose a patch that removes the dump TODO and unconditionally
>>> dumps at the current point would be a good preparation for this
>>> enhancing patch.
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>>> The default is 'finish'.
>>>>
>>>> Does it look ok?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Richard Guenther
>>>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your patch doesn't really improve this but adds to the confusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + /* Override dump TODOs. */
>>>>>>> + if (dump_file && (pass->todo_flags_finish & TODO_dump_func)
>>>>>>> + && (dump_flags & TDF_BEFORE))
>>>>>>> + {
>>>>>>> + pass->todo_flags_finish &= ~TODO_dump_func;
>>>>>>> + pass->todo_flags_start |= TODO_dump_func;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and certainly writing to pass is not ok. And the TDF_BEFORE flag
>>>>>>> looks misplaced as it controls TODOs, not dumping behavior.
>>>>>>> Yes, it's a mess right now but the above looks like a hack ontop
>>>>>>> of that mess (maybe because of it, but well ...).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about removing dumping TODO completely -- this can be done easily
>>>>>> -- I don't understand why pass wants extra control on the dumping if
>>>>>> user already asked for dumping -- it is annoying to see empty IR dump
>>>>>> for a pass when I want to see it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least I would have expected to also get the dump after the
>>>>>>> pass, not only the one before it with this dump flag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, why can't you look at the previous pass output for the
>>>>>>> before-dump (as I do usually)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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. Currently some passes
>>>>> do not dump function bodies because they presumably do no IL
>>>>> modification. But this is certainly the minority (and some passes do not
>>>>> dump bodies even though they are modifying the IL ...).
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'd say we should by default dump function bodies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that there are three useful dumping positions (maybe four),
>>>>> before todo-start, after todo-start, before todo-finish and after todo-finish.
>>>>> By default we'd want after todo-finish. When we no longer dump via
>>>>> a TODO then we could indeed use dump-flags to control this
>>>>> (maybe -original for the body before todo-start).
>>>>>
>>>>> What to others think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-09 9:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-01 20:26 Xinliang David Li
2011-06-01 20:37 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-01 20:38 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-01 21:12 ` Basile Starynkevitch
2011-06-01 21:24 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-06 11:12 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-06 16:21 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-07 9:36 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-07 16:23 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-07 16:43 ` Diego Novillo
2011-06-07 16:51 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-07 17:01 ` Diego Novillo
2011-06-07 17:07 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-07 17:26 ` Diego Novillo
2011-06-07 23:24 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-07 23:34 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-08 6:44 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-08 9:29 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-08 16:52 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-08 17:14 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-08 23:15 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-09 9:28 ` Richard Guenther [this message]
2011-06-09 15:58 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-10 9:04 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-10 16:54 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-10 18:49 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-14 14:19 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-14 16:02 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-14 20:05 ` Xinliang David Li
2011-06-14 23:22 ` Xinliang David Li
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=BANLkTinsjy_a0dP_j5vOP2KV6QvjO90mdw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=davidxl@google.com \
--cc=dnovillo@google.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).