This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: New dump infrastructure
- From: Sharad Singhai <singhai at google dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Martin Jambor <mjambor at suse dot cz>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:55:26 -0800
- Subject: Re: New dump infrastructure
- References: <CAKxPW66qc3be22Ou=+NKF0e5_xdzTqdz_6trz3xoG-uBqz2ViA@mail.gmail.com> <20121016134148.GE30509@virgil.arch.suse.de> <CAKxPW67ykRNQyuL62ULrwKP_7xFUX=iLaX1H=aWYgZx4ry+kYQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKxPW66dXzNYdti9m8q0wxO14cWzW2oXGX3wCyuqfoLZYQutFA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAkRFZ+jPYaAb2OBh6gfaz96A-_ZbMCmsOD+i_1Ms-Emw_LFXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc3GZ50bx2T4vf7JtNBoJXSkXZF0SLQZ7Kr1dD_p=9KgGw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAkRFZJ7vqJidNV1S0-RTto=r0mrXB9hsZ5Xsx7rDOB+jNeE4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc3HGC99MCNNbC-f2KXeYpX7-3A998NDvJ46YQx4dcV7nw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKxPW64COCvnA0U65CAAPA+BiRiHX2oWhMFCGyb30YWLKLfAwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc2wNunT1J=wuEf7TLAFjOEr0EiuvjmPekybSdbr03pnGw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAkRFZKmcPGJdgEFT6juNTHDNgwTs5NK9wu71cv86koam=zpMg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKxPW66Zx3YgrMq8Y8BW8WhQSoP-rbk9Vk0hZQ8wPQ_fEdFCOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKxPW65PboSJpEeXXxL9hsbBw=RiucCY597-bb9qCnNJ+J8oeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc2jRTPYae4aqza_UhWP66avHkp3g7Ts=yQfhXY+u2jfLw@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Richard Biener
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The new dump infrastructure was committed shortly before the trunk
>> entered stage 3.
>>
>> However, except the vectorization passes, other passes do not dump
>> anything in response to -fopt-info flags despite the documentation. I
>> can prepare patches for a couple more passes so that they output more
>> meaningful information, otherwise, the -fopt-info would remain largely
>> useless in 4.8. Also I suspect some other passes can be converted
>> relatively easily to use the new dump scheme.
>>
>> Would it be acceptable to consider -fopt-info patches in stage 3? If
>> yes, I can send out a more detailed message about the conversion and
>> solicit for help.
>
> It should be decided on a case-by-case basis. What passes do you have in mind
> that people are usually interested in in the context of -fopt-info?
For starters, I was looking at unrolling and inlining decisions
(loop-unroll.c and tree-inline.c respectively).
Thanks,
Sharad
>
> Richard.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Sharad