On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
>> Ping. The link to the message:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg01303.html
>
> I don't consider this an option handling patch. Patches adding whole new
> features involving new options should be reviewed by maintainers for the
> part of the compiler relevant to those features (since there isn't a pass
> manager maintainer, I guess that means middle-end).
Hmm, I suppose then you reviewed the option handling parts and they
are ok? Those globbing options always cause headache to me.
+-fenable-ipa-@var{pass} @gol
+-fenable-rtl-@var{pass} @gol
+-fenable-rtl-@var{pass}=@var{range-list} @gol
+-fenable-tree-@var{pass} @gol
so, no -fenable-tree-@var{pass}=@var{range-list}?
Does the pass name match 1:1 with the dump file name? In which
case
+Disable ipa pass @var{pass}. @var{pass} is the pass name. If the same
pass is statically invoked in the compiler multiple times, the pass
name should be appended with a sequential number starting from 1.
isn't true as passes that are invoked only a single time lack the number
suffix (yes, I'd really like that to be changed ...)
Please break likes also in .texi files and stick to 80 columns. Please
document that these options are debugging options and regular
options for enabling/disabling passes should be used. I would suggest
to group documentation differently and document -fenable-* and
-fdisable-*, thus,
+ -fdisable-@var{kind}-@var{pass}
+ -fenable-@var{kind}-@var{pass}
Even in .texi files please two spaces after a full-stop.
+extern void enable_disable_pass (const char *, bool);
I'd rather have both enable_pass and disable_pass ;)
+struct function;
+extern void pass_dump_function_header (FILE *, tree, struct function *);
that's odd and probably should be split out, the function should
maybe reside in tree-pretty-print.c.
Index: tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
===================================================================
--- tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (revision 173837)
+++ tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (working copy)
@@ -3968,7 +3968,7 @@ get_computation_cost_at (struct ivopts_d
well - doesn't belong here ;)
+static hashval_t
+passr_hash (const void *p)
+{
+ const struct pass_registry *const s = (const struct pass_registry *const) p;
+ return htab_hash_string (s->unique_name);
+}
+
+/* Hash equal function */
+
+static int
+passr_eq (const void *p1, const void *p2)
+{
+ const struct pass_registry *const s1 = (const struct pass_registry
*const) p1;
+ const struct pass_registry *const s2 = (const struct pass_registry
*const) p2;
+
+ return !strcmp (s1->unique_name, s2->unique_name);
+}
you can use htab_hash_string and strcmp directly, no need for these
wrappers.
+void
+register_pass_name (struct opt_pass *pass, const char *name)
doesn't seem to need exporting, so don't and make it static.
+ if (!pass_name_tab)
+ pass_name_tab = htab_create (10, passr_hash, passr_eq, NULL);
see above, the initial size should be larger - we have 223 passes at the
moment, so use 256.
+ else
+ return; /* Ignore plugin passes. */
? You mean they might clash?
+struct opt_pass *
+get_pass_by_name (const char *name)
doesn't need exporting either.
+ if (is_enable)
+ error ("unrecognized option -fenable");
+ else
+ error ("unrecognized option -fdisable");
I think that should be fatal_error - Joseph?
+ if (is_enable)
+ error ("unknown pass %s specified in -fenable", phase_name);
+ else
+ error ("unknown pass %s specified in -fdisble", phase_name);
likewise.
+ if (!enabled_pass_uid_range_tab)
+ enabled_pass_uid_range_tab = htab_create (10, pass_hash, pass_eq, NULL);
instead of using a hashtable here please use a VEC indexed by
the static_pass_number which shoud speed up
+static bool
+is_pass_explicitly_enabled_or_disabled (struct opt_pass *pass,
+ tree func, htab_t tab)
+{
+ struct uid_range **slot, *range, key;
+ int cgraph_uid;
+
+ if (!tab)
+ return false;
+
+ key.pass = pass;
+ slot = (struct uid_range **) htab_find_slot (tab, &key, NO_INSERT);
+ if (!slot || !*slot)
+ return false;
and simplify the code quite a bit.
+ cgraph_uid = func ? cgraph_get_node (func)->uid : 0;
note that cgraph uids are recycled, so it might not be the best idea
to use them as discriminator (though I don't have a good idea how
to represent ranges without them).
+ explicitly_enabled = is_pass_explicitly_enabled (pass,
current_function_decl);
+ explicitly_disabled = is_pass_explicitly_disabled (pass,
current_function_decl);
+
current_pass = pass;
/* Check whether gate check should be avoided.
User controls the value of the gate through the parameter
"gate_status". */
gate_status = (pass->gate == NULL) ? true : pass->gate();
+ gate_status = !explicitly_disabled && (gate_status || explicitly_enabled);
so explicitly disabling wins over explicit enabling ;) I think this
implementation detail and the fact that you always query both
hints at that the interface should be like
gate_status = override_gate_status (pass, current_function_decl, gate_status);
instead.
Thus, please split out the function header dumping changes and rework
the rest of the patch as suggested.
Thanks,
Richard.
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> jos...@codesourcery.com
>
