-fdump-passes -fenable-xxx=func_name_list

Xinliang David Li davidxl@google.com
Sun Jun 5 17:25:00 GMT 2011


Is this patch ok?

Thanks,

David

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> The attached is the split #1 patch that enhances -fenable/disable.
>
> Ok after testing?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Richard Guenther
>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>> The following patch implements the a new option that dumps gcc PASS
>>>> configuration. The sample output is attached.  There is one
>>>> limitation: some placeholder passes that are named with '*xxx' are
>>>> note registered thus they are not listed. They are not important as
>>>> they can not be turned on/off anyway.
>>>>
>>>> The patch also enhanced -fenable-xxx and -fdisable-xx to allow a list
>>>> of function assembler names to be specified.
>>>>
>>>> Ok for trunk?
>>>
>>> Please split the patch.
>>>
>>> I'm not too happy how you dump the pass configuration.  Why not simply,
>>> at a _single_ place, walk the pass tree?  Instead of doing pieces of it
>>> at pass execution time when it's not already dumped - that really looks
>>> gross.
>>
>> Yes, that was the original plan -- but it has problems
>> 1) the dumper needs to know the root pass lists -- which can change
>> frequently -- it can be a long term maintanance burden;
>> 2) the centralized dumper needs to be done after option processing
>> 3) not sure if gate functions have any side effects or have dependencies on cfun
>>
>> The proposed solutions IMHO is not that intrusive -- just three hooks
>> to do the dumping and tracking indentation.
>>
>>>
>>> The documentation should also link this option to the -fenable/disable
>>> options as obviously the pass names in that dump are those to be
>>> used for those flags (and not readily available anywhere else).
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>>
>>> I also think that it would be way more useful to note in the individual
>>> dump files the functions (at the place they would usually appear) that
>>> have the pass explicitly enabled/disabled.
>>
>> Ok -- for ipa passes or tree/rtl passes where all functions are
>> explicitly disabled.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>
>>
>



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list