From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E40093858D20 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 11:44:25 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org E40093858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1693482265; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=BVTU+IRMAFKrrQkR6Z9apxckMG6PzWc+oxgShEggB0Y=; b=N83RpCTywUpFpg2Lr6U7IjUfHPYP8/d1gVnyH2RyEn9uOsF/HsSAHPgMg2ZTh/pi1m++/B u21t5yHqckE9EyOwWqiaNmDXP5CZP7LDCrkldXrbzaRvRZU84MyHrGMxLTCFNvHYgNy5KA Is82y0uQDwRSEYDWG26SHGPuXRNZ4aE= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-164-4-wvIUPmNtWb_jP0CZYc_A-1; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 07:44:22 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 4-wvIUPmNtWb_jP0CZYc_A-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA87A8030AC; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 11:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.45.224.16]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F84F40C2063; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 11:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 37VBiJ9k265938 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:44:19 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 37VBiJMJ265937; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:44:19 +0200 Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:44:18 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Filip Kastl Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, hubicka@ucw.cz, rguenther@suse.de Subject: Re: [RFC] gimple ssa: SCCP - A new PHI optimization pass Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <084BC52B-00DE-4496-8B85-9211C3AD8394@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 01:26:37PM +0200, Filip Kastl wrote: > Regarding debug info coverage: I didn't notice any additional guality testcases > failing after I applied the patch. *Is there any other way how I should check > debug info coverage?* I'm usually using https://github.com/pmachata/dwlocstat for that, usually on cc1plus from the last stage of gcc bootstrap. Though of course, if one tree is unpatched and one patched, that results in different code not just because the optimization did something, but because it is different source. So, for such purposes, I usually after one of the 2 bootstraps apply resp. revert the patch, make a copy of the cc1plus binary and do make -jN cc1plus in the last stage directory (only there, not attempt to rebootstrap). Jakub