this is the patch that just removes the TODO_dump flag and forces it to dump. The original code cfun->last_verified = flags & TODO_verify_all looks weird -- depending on TODO_dump is set or not, the behavior of the update is different (when no other todo flags is set).
Ok for trunk? David On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Richard Guenther > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: >>> The following is the patch that does the job. Most of the changes are >>> just removing TODO_dump_func. The major change is in passes.c and >>> tree-pass.h. >>> >>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-start <-- dump before TODO_start >>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-before <-- dump before main pass after TODO_pass >>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-after <-- dump after main pass before TODO_finish >>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-finish <-- dump after TODO_finish >> >> Can we bikeshed a bit more about these names? > > These names may be less confusing: > > before_preparation > before > after > after_cleanup > > David > >> "start" and "before" >> have no semantical difference to me ... as the dump before TODO_start >> of a pass and the dump after TODO_finish of the previous pass are >> identical (hopefully ;)), maybe merge those into a -between flag? >> If you'd specify it for a single pass then you'd get both -start and -finish >> (using your naming scheme). Splitting that dump(s) to different files >> then might make sense (not sure about the name to use). >> >> Note that I find it extremely useful to have dumping done in >> chronological order - splitting some of it to different files destroys >> this, especially a dump after TODO_start or before TODO_finish >> should appear in the same file (or we could also start splitting >> individual TODO_ output into sub-dump-files). I guess what would >> be nice instread would be a fancy dump-file viewer that could >> show diffs, hide things like SCEV output, etc. >> >> I suppose a patch that removes the dump TODO and unconditionally >> dumps at the current point would be a good preparation for this >> enhancing patch. >> >> Richard. >> >>> The default is 'finish'. >>> >>> Does it look ok? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> David >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Richard Guenther >>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Your patch doesn't really improve this but adds to the confusion. >>>>>> >>>>>> + /* Override dump TODOs. */ >>>>>> + if (dump_file && (pass->todo_flags_finish & TODO_dump_func) >>>>>> + && (dump_flags & TDF_BEFORE)) >>>>>> + { >>>>>> + pass->todo_flags_finish &= ~TODO_dump_func; >>>>>> + pass->todo_flags_start |= TODO_dump_func; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> >>>>>> and certainly writing to pass is not ok. And the TDF_BEFORE flag >>>>>> looks misplaced as it controls TODOs, not dumping behavior. >>>>>> Yes, it's a mess right now but the above looks like a hack ontop >>>>>> of that mess (maybe because of it, but well ...). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How about removing dumping TODO completely -- this can be done easily >>>>> -- I don't understand why pass wants extra control on the dumping if >>>>> user already asked for dumping -- it is annoying to see empty IR dump >>>>> for a pass when I want to see it. >>>>> >>>>>> At least I would have expected to also get the dump after the >>>>>> pass, not only the one before it with this dump flag. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, why can't you look at the previous pass output for the >>>>>> before-dump (as I do usually)? >>>>> >>>>> For one thing, you need to either remember what is the previous pass, >>>>> or dump all passes which for large files can take very long time. Even >>>>> with all the dumps, you will need to eyeballing to find the previous >>>>> pass which may or may not have the IR dumped. >>>>> >>>>> How about removing dump TODO? >>>> >>>> Yeah, I think this would go in the right direction. Currently some passes >>>> do not dump function bodies because they presumably do no IL >>>> modification. But this is certainly the minority (and some passes do not >>>> dump bodies even though they are modifying the IL ...). >>>> >>>> So I'd say we should by default dump function bodies. >>>> >>>> Note that there are three useful dumping positions (maybe four), >>>> before todo-start, after todo-start, before todo-finish and after >>>> todo-finish. >>>> By default we'd want after todo-finish. When we no longer dump via >>>> a TODO then we could indeed use dump-flags to control this >>>> (maybe -original for the body before todo-start). >>>> >>>> What to others think? >>>> >>>> Richard. >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >