Dump before flag

Xinliang David Li davidxl@google.com
Fri Jun 10 18:49:00 GMT 2011


This is the revised patch as suggested.

How does it look?

Thanks,

David

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Richard Guenther
> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>> See attached.
>>
>> Hmm.  I don't like how you still wire dumping in the TODO routines.
>> Doesn't it work to just dump the body from pass_fini_dump_file ()?
>> Or if that doesn't sound clean from (a subset of) places where it
>> is called? (we might want to exclude the ipa read/write/summary
>> stages)
>
> That may require another round of function traversal -- but probably
> not a big deal -- it sounds cleaner.
>
> David
>
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Richard Guenther
>>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> this is the patch that just removes the TODO_dump flag and forces it
>>>>> to dump. The original code cfun->last_verified = flags &
>>>>> TODO_verify_all looks weird -- depending on TODO_dump is set or not,
>>>>> the behavior of the update is different (when no other todo flags is
>>>>> set).
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok for trunk?
>>>>
>>>> -ENOPATCH.
>>>>
>>>> Richard.
>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Richard Guenther
>>>>>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The following is the patch that does the job. Most of the changes are
>>>>>>>> just  removing TODO_dump_func. The major change is in passes.c and
>>>>>>>> tree-pass.h.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-start       <-- dump before TODO_start
>>>>>>>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-before    <-- dump before main pass after TODO_pass
>>>>>>>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-after       <-- dump after main pass before TODO_finish
>>>>>>>> -fdump-xxx-yyy-finish      <-- dump after TODO_finish
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we bikeshed a bit more about these names?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These names may be less confusing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> before_preparation
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> after
>>>>>> after_cleanup
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "start" and "before"
>>>>>>> have no semantical difference to me ... as the dump before TODO_start
>>>>>>> of a pass and the dump after TODO_finish of the previous pass are
>>>>>>> identical (hopefully ;)), maybe merge those into a -between flag?
>>>>>>> If you'd specify it for a single pass then you'd get both -start and -finish
>>>>>>> (using your naming scheme).  Splitting that dump(s) to different files
>>>>>>> then might make sense (not sure about the name to use).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that I find it extremely useful to have dumping done in
>>>>>>> chronological order - splitting some of it to different files destroys
>>>>>>> this, especially a dump after TODO_start or before TODO_finish
>>>>>>> should appear in the same file (or we could also start splitting
>>>>>>> individual TODO_ output into sub-dump-files).  I guess what would
>>>>>>> be nice instread would be a fancy dump-file viewer that could
>>>>>>> show diffs, hide things like SCEV output, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose a patch that removes the dump TODO and unconditionally
>>>>>>> dumps at the current point would be a good preparation for this
>>>>>>> enhancing patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The default is 'finish'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does it look ok?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Richard Guenther
>>>>>>>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your patch doesn't really improve this but adds to the confusion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +  /* Override dump TODOs.  */
>>>>>>>>>>> +  if (dump_file && (pass->todo_flags_finish & TODO_dump_func)
>>>>>>>>>>> +      && (dump_flags & TDF_BEFORE))
>>>>>>>>>>> +    {
>>>>>>>>>>> +      pass->todo_flags_finish &= ~TODO_dump_func;
>>>>>>>>>>> +      pass->todo_flags_start |= TODO_dump_func;
>>>>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and certainly writing to pass is not ok.  And the TDF_BEFORE flag
>>>>>>>>>>> looks misplaced as it controls TODOs, not dumping behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's a mess right now but the above looks like a hack ontop
>>>>>>>>>>> of that mess (maybe because of it, but well ...).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about removing dumping TODO completely -- this can be done easily
>>>>>>>>>> -- I don't understand why pass wants extra control on the dumping if
>>>>>>>>>> user already asked for dumping -- it is annoying to see empty IR dump
>>>>>>>>>> for a pass when I want to see it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At least I would have expected to also get the dump after the
>>>>>>>>>>> pass, not only the one before it with this dump flag.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, why can't you look at the previous pass output for the
>>>>>>>>>>> before-dump (as I do usually)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For one thing, you need to either remember what is the previous pass,
>>>>>>>>>> or dump all passes which for large files can take very long time. Even
>>>>>>>>>> with all the dumps, you will need to eyeballing to find the previous
>>>>>>>>>> pass which may or may not have the IR dumped.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about removing dump TODO?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I think this would go in the right direction.  Currently some passes
>>>>>>>>> do not dump function bodies because they presumably do no IL
>>>>>>>>> modification.  But this is certainly the minority (and some passes do not
>>>>>>>>> dump bodies even though they are modifying the IL ...).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I'd say we should by default dump function bodies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note that there are three useful dumping positions (maybe four),
>>>>>>>>> before todo-start, after todo-start, before todo-finish and after todo-finish.
>>>>>>>>> By default we'd want after todo-finish.  When we no longer dump via
>>>>>>>>> a TODO then we could indeed use dump-flags to control this
>>>>>>>>> (maybe -original for the body before todo-start).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What to others think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Richard.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dump-control-3.p
Type: text/x-pascal
Size: 71428 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20110610/5405e30d/attachment.bin>


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list