This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [gimplefe] [gsoc16] Gimple Front End Project
- From: Mikhail Maltsev <maltsevm at gmail dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 20:44:20 +0300
- Subject: Re: [gimplefe] [gsoc16] Gimple Front End Project
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAE+uiWabe9W088+CaKh+8VgSdadk+pyt2C6QEbxgj=bQs=Nkdg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAE+uiWajGum8ccJer8E9w56KVm_VcM8jXB2atXSwpWeuYenFpg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAD_=9DSJBCdKtY+K2FDt5FS85hAue7MznyUX2Z4RUffOmuoDFA at mail dot gmail dot com> <FA69E188-E41B-4A3C-AC4A-2D21F0ADA713 at gmail dot com> <CAE+uiWbJ7+mY_2xYNQBTT1emXf5J+E79nK+c2cE2u1Deh8Zf=w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc2_93J4K7vNDZngW=5wMxUK1s+JxQo2k7TByUkDT_cz7w at mail dot gmail dot com> <1457368435 dot 9813 dot 68 dot camel at redhat dot com> <20160308002418 dot GA13433 at ball> <56DEF2F1 dot 1080900 at gmail dot com> <A7AF86B3-A2D2-429B-99B0-BDA1F345251A at gmail dot com>
On 03/08/2016 06:56 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> The dumps contain a lot of (sometimes optional) unstructured
>> information. For
>> example, they show both the result of the pass and (arbitrarily
>> unstructured)
>> messages about what the pass is doing.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to get the dumps in a more structured form (e.g.,
>>
>> separating IR from debug messages) before doing this?
>
> I'd say a dump modifier -il to make it dump IL only (maybe into a different file) plus required global info such as types would be enough.
Why not just support comments in GIMPLE FE and output all unstructured pass
information inside them? In fact, some stuff is already wrapped into ";;"-style
comments, like this:
;; Function fn1 (null)
;; enabled by -tree-original
You could just change it to use C++-style comments (//), which C-family
frontends already understand.
>
> Also note my suggestion that all GIMPLE sources should be valid C as well it would be unfortunate to lose the option to torture unit tests.
>
I wonder how will this work with SSA form?
--
Regards,
Mikhail Maltsev