On 29 June 2016 at 22:15, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On June 29, 2016 6:20:29 PM GMT+02:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>On 18 June 2016 at 12:02, Prasad Ghangal <prasad.ghan...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I tried hacking pass manager to execute only given passes. For this I
>>> am adding new member as opt_pass *custom_pass_list to the function
>>> structure to store passes need to execute and providing the
>>> custom_pass_list to execute_pass_list() function instead of all
>>passes
>>>
>>> for test case like-
>>>
>>> int a;
>>> void __GIMPLE (execute ("tree-ccp1", "tree-fre1")) foo()
>>> {
>>> bb_1:
>>> a = 1 + a;
>>> }
>>>
>>> it will execute only given passes i.e. ccp1 and fre1 pass on the
>>function
>>>
>>> and for test case like -
>>>
>>> int a;
>>> void __GIMPLE (startwith ("tree-ccp1")) foo()
>>> {
>>> bb_1:
>>> a = 1 + a;
>>> }
>>>
>>> it will act as a entry point to the pipeline and will execute passes
>>> starting from given pass.
>>Bike-shedding:
>>Would it make sense to have syntax for defining pass ranges to execute
>>?
>>for instance:
>>void __GIMPLE(execute (pass_start : pass_end))
>>which would execute all the passes within range [pass_start, pass_end],
>>which would be convenient if the range is large.
>
> But it would rely on a particular pass pipeline, f.e. pass-start appearing
> before pass-end.
>
> Currently control doesn't work 100% as it only replaces all_optimizations but
> not lowering passes or early opts, nor IPA opts.
>
Each pass needs GIMPLE in some specific form. So I am letting lowering
and early opt passes to execute. I think we have to execute some
passes (like cfg) anyway to represent GIMPLE into proper form
> Richard.
>
>>Thanks,
>>Prathamesh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Prasad Ghangal
>
>
