On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Nathan Froyd <froy...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 04:27:01PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Nathan Froyd <froy...@codesourcery.com> >> wrote: >> > It's a shame more passes don't make use of the statistics_* >> > infrastructure. This patch is a step towards rectifying that and adds >> > statistics_counter_event calls to passes mentioned in $SUBJECT. >> > postreload-gcse already tracked the stats for the dump file and so only >> > needs the statistics_counter_event calls; the other passes needed to be >> > taught about the statistics also. >> >> Ok if there are no complaints within 24h. I actually have a local patch >> adding many of these which I use whenever fiddling with the pass pipeline ... >> (attached). > > Thanks. I may go twiddle that patch to do something similar to mine and > submit that. Do you use your patch for checking that the same set of > optimizations get performed, then? I'm interested in using the > statistics for identifying passes that don't buy us much across a wide > variety of codebases. (Suggestions for suitable ones welcome!)
Yes, I used it exactly for that. And also to verify that passes don't do anything if replicated (well, for those that shouldn't at least). Don't expect any low-hanging fruit though ;) I catched all of it already. Candidates are obviously SPEC and GCC itself. I also use tramp3d of course. That said, even if a pass does nearly nothing we often have testcases that need it ... Richard. > -Nathan >