On 19 July 2016 at 11:04, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On July 18, 2016 11:05:58 PM GMT+02:00, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>>On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 00:52 +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>> On 19 July 2016 at 00:25, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On July 18, 2016 8:28:15 PM GMT+02:00, Prasad Ghangal <
>>> > prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > On 15 July 2016 at 16:13, Richard Biener <
>>> > > richard.guent...@gmail.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>>> > > > <prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > On 8 July 2016 at 13:13, Richard Biener <
>>> > > > > richard.guent...@gmail.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>>> > > <prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > On 6 July 2016 at 14:24, Richard Biener
>>> > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>>> > > <prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > > On 30 June 2016 at 17:10, Richard Biener
>>> > > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>>> > > > > > > > > > <prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > > > > 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
>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's true. Note that early opt passes only
>>> > > > > > > > > > optimize but
>>> > > we need
>>> > > > > > > > > > pass_build_ssa_passes at least (for into-SSA). For
>>> > > > > > > > > > proper
>>> > > unit-testing
>>> > > > > > > > > > of GIMPLE passes we do need to guard off early opts
>>> > > > > > > > > > somehow
>>> > > > > > > > > > (I guess a simple if (flag_gimple && cfun
>>> > > > > > > > > > ->custom_pass_list)
>>> > > would do
>>> > > > > > > > > > that).
>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > Then there is of course the question about IPA
>>> > > > > > > > > > passes which I
>>> > > think is
>>> > > > > > > > > > somewhat harder (one could always disable all IPA
>>> > > > > > > > > > passes
>>> > > manually
>>> > > > > > > > > > via flags of course or finally have a global
>>> > > > > > > > > > -fipa/no-ipa like
>>> > > most
>>> > > > > > > > > > other compilers).
>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > Can we iterate through all ipa passes and do
>>> > > > > > > > > -fdisable-ipa-pass
>>> > > or
>>> > > > > > > > > -fenable-ipa-pass equivalent for each?
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > We could do that, yes. But let's postpone this issue.
>>> > > > > > > > I think
>>> > > that
>>> > > > > > > > startwith is going to be most useful and rather than
>>> > > > > > > > constructing
>>> > > > > > > > a pass list for it "native" support for it in the pass
>>> > > > > > > > manager is
>>> > > > > > > > likely to produce better results (add a 'startwith'
>>> > > > > > > > member
>>> > > alongside
>>> > > > > > > > the pass list member and if it is set the pass manager
>>> > > > > > > > skips all
>>> > > > > > > > passes that do not match 'startwith' and once it
>>> > > > > > > > reaches it it
>>> > > clears
>>> > > > > > > > the field).
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > In the future I hope we can get away from a static pass
>>> > > > > > > > list and
>>> > > more
>>> > > > > > > > towards rule-driven pass execution (we have all those
>>> > > > > > > > PROP_*
>>> > > stuff
>>> > > > > > > > already but it isn't really used for example). But
>>> > > > > > > > well, that
>>> > > would be
>>> > > > > > > > a separate GSoC project ;)
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > IMHO startwith will provide everything needed for unit
>>> > > > > > > > -testing.
>>> > > We can
>>> > > > > > > > add a flag on whether further passes should be executed
>>> > > > > > > > or not
>>> > > and
>>> > > > > > > > even a pass list like execute ("ccp1", "fre") can be
>>> > > > > > > > implemented
>>> > > by
>>> > > > > > > > startwith ccp1 and then from there executing the rest
>>> > > > > > > > of the
>>> > > passes in the
>>> > > > > > > > list and stopping at the end.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > As said, unit-testing should exercise a single pass if
>>> > > > > > > > we can
>>> > > control
>>> > > > > > > > its input.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > In this patch I am skipping execution of passes until
>>> > > pass_startwith
>>> > > > > > > is found. Unlike previous build, now pass manager
>>> > > > > > > executes all
>>> > > passes
>>> > > > > > > in pipeline starting from pass_startwith instead of just
>>> > > > > > > sub
>>> > > passes.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > That looks good. I wonder if
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > + if (startwith_p && cfun->startwith)
>>> > > > > > + {
>>> > > > > > + if (pass->name == cfun->pass_startwith->name
>>> > > > > > + || pass->name == "*clean_state")
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > need better be strcmp ()s though. Also the early
>>> > > > > > optimization
>>> > > pipeline
>>> > > > > > should be executed with startwith support as well.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > This patch adds startwith support for early opt passes. But
>>> > > > > for
>>> > > > > starting from some passes (like asan0, optimized) in
>>> > > > > all_passes
>>> > > > > pipeline, it falils at verify_curr_properties in
>>> > > > > execute_one_pass
>>> > > ().
>>> > > > > I wonder if we need to update properties after skipping each
>>> > > > > pass
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Yeah, it's not possible to start at arbitrary points with
>>> > > > skipping
>>> > > passes
>>> > > > that provide a required property. I suspect it's good enough
>>> > > > that
>>> > > we'll
>>> > > > ICE if that happens.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I see you are working on the dump-file side a bit now. What is
>>> > > > still
>>> > > > missing after you got support for PHIs is parsing of SSA names.
>>> > > > Without this unit-testing will be difficult at best.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I think what we need to do is simplify the job of the parser
>>> > > > and
>>> > > > make the syntax we use to print SSA names a bit different.
>>> > > > So rather than printing VAR_VERSION we need to choose a
>>> > > > letter that is not part of a valid identifier before VERSION,
>>> > > > like a dot '.'. Thus we'd have i.1 instead of i_1 and we'd
>>> > > > have
>>> > > > .2 instead of _2 for an anonymous SSA name. The advantage
>>> > > > for non-anonymous names is that we can properly re-use the
>>> > > > C frontends decl handling for declaring and looking up 'i'.
>>> > > > The disadvantage is that for anonymous SSA names this isn't
>>> > > > so easy which means we could choose to not support those
>>> > > > for the moment and require fake decls for them. In fact
>>> > > > into-SSA will do the correct thing if we just treat them as
>>> > > > decls,
>>> > > > thus continue to dump them as _VERSION.
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > > I am little confused here about parsing 'i.1' because lexer drops
>>> > > DOT
>>> > > token for syntax like NAME.NUMBER . Hence instead of 'i.1' parser
>>> > > receives 'i1'
>>> >
>>> > Are you sure? You should get three tokens, one for 'i', one for the
>>> > dot and
>>> > One for '1'. You'd lookup the first via the C frontend symbol
>>> > table only.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yes, I was also expecting that. For syntax like 'a.b' (ie name.name)
>>> it gives proper 3 tokens but for syntax like 'a.1' it produces only
>>> 2.
>>>
>>> This is what I observed while debugging "int a.1;"
>>>
>>> (gdb) print *c_parser_peek_nth_token (parser, 1)
>>> $3 = {type = CPP_KEYWORD, id_kind = C_ID_NONE, keyword = RID_INT,
>>> pragma_kind = PRAGMA_NONE, location = 242114, value =
>>> 0x7ffff65c82d0}
>>> (gdb) print *c_parser_peek_nth_token (parser, 2)
>>> $4 = {type = CPP_NAME, id_kind = C_ID_ID, keyword = RID_MAX,
>>> pragma_kind = PRAGMA_NONE, location = 242240, value =
>>> 0x7ffff66d0b90}
>>> (gdb) print *c_parser_peek_nth_token (parser, 3)
>>> $5 = {type = CPP_NUMBER, id_kind = C_ID_NONE, keyword = RID_MAX,
>>> pragma_kind = PRAGMA_NONE, location = 242273, value =
>>> 0x7ffff66e0030}
>>
>>What is the number? I'm wondering if it's somehow been lexed as a
>>decimal ".1" i.e. if the "." is somehow being treated as part of the
>>CPP_NUMBER.
>
Yes, the token '.1' is treated as CPP_NUMBER
> Ah, possible...
>
>>FWIW, I find hacking in calls to "inform" very useful for seeing what
>>each token is (assuming that caret printing isn't disabled).
>>
>> (gdb) call inform ($3->location, "")
>> (gdb) call inform ($4->location, "")
>> (gdb) call inform ($5
>>->location, "")
>>
>>etc
>>
>>BTW, does it have to be '.' as the SSA_NAME separator? Could it be a
>>different character e.g. '@' or something else that's non-legal in C?
>
> It doesn't have to be '.', but sth visually not too disturbing would be nice.
> If we don't go with '.' We can as well try to parse the SSA version from
> i_1, leaving the ambiguity with it being a valid C identifier.
>
As special characters are not valid in C, I am using 'a..1' as syntax
for ssa name. For parsing I am using
+ lhs.value = make_ssa_name_fn (cfun,
+ lookup_name (c_parser_peek_token
(parser)->value),
+ NULL);
Now for passing ssa name into __PHI, how can we lookup for particular ssa name.
Or is there other better method to do it?
> Richard.
>
>>Dave
>
>
