From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13268 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2011 08:06:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 13260 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2011 08:06:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:06:14 +0000 Received: by wwi18 with SMTP id 18so1476529wwi.8 for ; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.25.7 with SMTP id y7mr1313653wey.19.1314864372867; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from richards-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com (gbibp9ph1--blueice2n1.emea.ibm.com [195.212.29.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s49sm199139wec.25.2011.09.01.01.06.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:06:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: Ira Rosen Mail-Followup-To: Ira Rosen ,Richard Guenther , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, richard.sandiford@linaro.org Cc: Richard Guenther , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make vectorizer dumps more comparable References: Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Ira Rosen's message of "Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:51:02 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2011-09/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 Ira Rosen writes: >> How about, as Micha suggested, print the location of the loop >> we currently investigate from vectorize_loops () where we >> call find_loop_location () instead? > > The problem is that a dump of a single loop can be pretty long, and "start > to analyze loop..."/"finish to analyze loop..." may be not visible enough. > I am OK with adding these printings though (in addition to line numbers). > > I understand why you didn't like to see the file location, but what's the > problem with the line number? +1 FWIW. I found these per-line locations really useful when doing the strided load/store stuff. Richard