On 02/01/2017 08:26 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 02/01/2017 08:06 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 02/01/2017 06:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
As discussed in bug 32003 - Undocumented -fdump-tree options, rather
than duplicating the same boiler-plate text for each of the dozens
(138 by my count) of undocumented passes, the attached patch removes
the pass-specific -fdump-tree- options replacing them with a list of
generic steps to determine the full list of such options and the names
of the dump files for each.
The bug only talks about -fdump-tree- options so the attached patch
only tackles those and leaves the -fdump-rtl- options for another
time.
Thanks for tackling this. I think the patch requires another round of
cleanup, though.
Attached is an updated version.
Just a couple more small things.
@@ -12985,9 +12965,11 @@ whole compilation unit while @samp{-details}
dumps every event as
the passes generate them. The default with no option is to sum
counters for each function compiled.
+@item -fdump-tree-all
@item -fdump-tree-@var{switch}
You need to make this one @itemx now since you added @item just above it.
+To enable the creation of the dump file, append the pass code to
+the @option{-fdump-} option prefix and invoke GCC with it. For example,
+to enable the dump from the Early Value Range Propagation pass, invoke
+GCC with the @option{-fdump-tree-evrp} option. Optionally, you may
+specify the name of the dump file. If you don't specify one, GCC will
+create one as described below.
s/will create one/creates one/
@@ -15572,7 +15434,7 @@ before calling a function and popped afterwards.
Popping the arguments after the function call can be expensive on
AVR so that accumulating the stack space might lead to smaller
-executables because arguments need not to be removed from the
+executables because arguments need not be removed from the
stack after such a function call.
This option can lead to reduced code size for functions that perform
This change is good, but it's clearly not related to the other parts of
the patch, and wasn't present in the previous version. Did you intend
to do this? If so, please commit it separately. (I often commit big
patches with collected copy-edits and typo corrections, but I try to
keep those separate from content rewrites or restructuring patches.)