-fdump-passes -fenable-xxx=func_name_list

Richard Guenther richard.guenther@gmail.com
Mon Jun 6 15:59:00 GMT 2011


On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Richard Guenther
> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>> The attached is the split #1 patch that enhances -fenable/disable.
>>>
>>> Ok after testing?
>>
>> I expect the testcases will be quite fragile, so while I appreciate
>> test coverage for new options I think we should go without those
>> that involve any kind of UID.  Those which use assembler names
>> also will fail randomly dependent on how targets mangle their
>> functions - so I think we have to drop all testcases.
>
> Ok -- how about keeping tests with large uid range, and assembler name
> for x86? A feature without testing is just to easy to break without
> being noticed.

That's true.  Running the tests on a few selected known-good targets
sounds good.

Richard.

>>
>> Also
>>
>> +/* A helper function to determine if an identifier is valid to
>> +   be an assembler name (better to use target specific hook).  */
>> +
>> +static bool
>> +is_valid_assembler_name (const char *str)
>> +{
>> +  const char *p = str;
>> +  char c;
>> +
>> +  c = *p;
>> +  if (!((c >= 'a' && c <= 'z')
>> +        || (c >= 'A' && c <= 'Z')
>> +        || *p == '_'))
>> +    return false;
>> +
>> +  p++;
>> +  while ((c = *p))
>> +   {
>> +     if (!((c >= 'a' && c <= 'z')
>> +           || (c >= 'A' && c <= 'Z')
>> +           || (c >= '0' && c <= '9')
>> +           || *p == '_'))
>> +       return false;
>> +     p++;
>> +   }
>> +
>> +  return true;
>> +}
>>
>> why all that complicated checks?  Why not just check for p[0]
>> in [^0-9] and re-structure the range parsing to switch between
>> UIDs and assembler-names that way?
>
> Ok.
>
> David
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
>>
>>> 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