Ok -- that sounds good.
David
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Richard Guenther
>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> This is the version of the patch that walks through pass lists.
>>>>
>>>> Ok with this one?
>>>
>>> +/* Dump all optimization passes. */
>>> +
>>> +void
>>> +dump_passes (void)
>>> +{
>>> + struct cgraph_node *n, *node = NULL;
>>> + tree save_fndecl = current_function_decl;
>>> +
>>> + fprintf (stderr, "MAX_UID = %d\n", cgraph_max_uid);
>>>
>>> this isn't accurate info - cloning can cause more cgraph nodes to
>>> appear (it also looks completely unrelated to dump_passes ...).
>>> Please drop it.
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> + create_pass_tab();
>>> + gcc_assert (pass_tab);
>>>
>>> you have quite many asserts of this kind - we don't want them when
>>> the previous stmt as in this case indicates everything is ok.
>>
>> ok.
>>
>>>
>>> + push_cfun (DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (node->decl));
>>>
>>> this has side-effects, I'm not sure we want this here. Why do you
>>> need it? Probably because of
>>>
>>> + is_really_on = override_gate_status (pass, current_function_decl, is_on);
>>>
>>> ? But that is dependent on the function given which should have no
>>> effect (unless it is overridden globally in which case override_gate_status
>>> and friends should deal with a NULL cfun).
>>
>> As we discussed, currently some pass gate functions depend on per node
>> information -- those checks need to be pushed into execute functions.
>> I would like to clean those up later -- at which time, the push/pop
>> can be removed.
>
> I'd like to do it the other way around, first clean up the gate functions then
> drop in this patch without the cfun push/pop. The revised patch looks ok
> to me with the cfun push/pop removed.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
>>>
>>> I don't understand why you need another table mapping pass to name
>>> when pass->name is available and the info is trivially re-constructible.
>>
>> This is needed as the pass->name is not the canonicalized name (i.e.,
>> not with number suffix etc), so the extra mapping from id to
>> normalized name is needed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Richard Guenther
>>>>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Richard Guenther
>>>>>>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The following patch implements the a new option that dumps gcc PASS
>>>>>>>>> configuration. The sample output is attached. There is one
>>>>>>>>> limitation: some placeholder passes that are named with '*xxx' are
>>>>>>>>> note registered thus they are not listed. They are not important as
>>>>>>>>> they can not be turned on/off anyway.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The patch also enhanced -fenable-xxx and -fdisable-xx to allow a list
>>>>>>>>> of function assembler names to be specified.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ok for trunk?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please split the patch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not too happy how you dump the pass configuration. Why not simply,
>>>>>>>> at a _single_ place, walk the pass tree? Instead of doing pieces of it
>>>>>>>> at pass execution time when it's not already dumped - that really looks
>>>>>>>> gross.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that was the original plan -- but it has problems
>>>>>>> 1) the dumper needs to know the root pass lists -- which can change
>>>>>>> frequently -- it can be a long term maintanance burden;
>>>>>>> 2) the centralized dumper needs to be done after option processing
>>>>>>> 3) not sure if gate functions have any side effects or have
>>>>>>> dependencies on cfun
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The proposed solutions IMHO is not that intrusive -- just three hooks
>>>>>>> to do the dumping and tracking indentation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, if you have a CU that is empty or optimized to nothing at some
>>>>>> point
>>>>>> you will not get a complete pass list. I suppose optimize attributes
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> also confuse output. Your solution might not be that intrusive
>>>>>> but it is still ugly. I don't see 1) as an issue, for 2) you can just
>>>>>> call the
>>>>>> dumping from toplev_main before calling do_compile (), 3) gate functions
>>>>>> shouldn't have side-effects, but as they could gate on
>>>>>> optimize_for_speed ()
>>>>>> your option summary output will be bogus anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So - what is the output intended for if it isn't reliable?
>>>>>
>>>>> This needs to be cleaned up at some point -- the gate function should
>>>>> behave the same for all functions and per-function decisions need to
>>>>> be pushed down to the executor body. I will try to rework the patch
>>>>> as you suggested to see if there are problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The documentation should also link this option to the -fenable/disable
>>>>>>>> options as obviously the pass names in that dump are those to be
>>>>>>>> used for those flags (and not readily available anywhere else).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also think that it would be way more useful to note in the individual
>>>>>>>> dump files the functions (at the place they would usually appear) that
>>>>>>>> have the pass explicitly enabled/disabled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok -- for ipa passes or tree/rtl passes where all functions are
>>>>>>> explicitly disabled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Richard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
