On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Sharad Singhai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ping.
Some minor issues:
* c/c-decl.c (c_write_global_declarations): Use different method to
determine if the dump has ben initialized.
* cp/decl2.c (cp_write_global_declarations): Ditto.
* testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c: Fix test.
these subdirs all have their separate ChangeLog entry from where the
directory name is omitted.
Index: tree-dump.c
===================================================================
--- tree-dump.c (revision 191490)
+++ tree-dump.c (working copy)
@@ -24,9 +24,11 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
#include "coretypes.h"
#include "tm.h"
#include "tree.h"
+#include "gimple-pretty-print.h"
#include "splay-tree.h"
#include "filenames.h"
#include "diagnostic-core.h"
+#include "rtl.h"
what do you need gimple-pretty-print.h and rtl.h for?
+
+extern void dump_bb (FILE *, basic_block, int, int);
+
that should be declared in some header
+/* Dump gimple statement GS with SPC indentation spaces and
+ EXTRA_DUMP_FLAGS on the dump streams if DUMP_KIND is enabled. */
+
+void
+dump_gimple_stmt (int dump_kind, int extra_dump_flags, gimple gs, int spc)
+{
the gimple stuff really belongs in to gimple-pretty-print.c
(parts of tree-dump.c should be moved to a new file dumpfile.c)
+/* Dump tree T using EXTRA_DUMP_FLAGS on dump streams if DUMP_KIND is
+ enabled. */
+
+void
+dump_generic_expr (int dump_kind, int extra_dump_flags, tree t)
+{
belongs to tree-pretty-print.c (to where the routines are it calls)
+int
+dump_start (int phase, int *flag_ptr)
+{
perfect candidate for dumpfile.c
You can do this re-shuffling as followup, but please try to not include rtl.h
or gimple-pretty-print.h from tree-dump.c. Thus re-shuffling required by that
do now. tree-dump.c should only know about dumping 'tree'.
Index: tree-dump.h
===================================================================
--- tree-dump.h (revision 191490)
+++ tree-dump.h (working copy)
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
#ifndef GCC_TREE_DUMP_H
#define GCC_TREE_DUMP_H
+#include "input.h"
probably no longer required.
Index: dumpfile.h
===================================================================
--- dumpfile.h (revision 191490)
+++ dumpfile.h (working copy)
@@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
#ifndef GCC_DUMPFILE_H
#define GCC_DUMPFILE_H 1
+#include "coretypes.h"
+#include "input.h"
likewise for input.h.
Index: testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c
===================================================================
--- testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c (revision 191490)
+++ testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c (working copy)
@@ -32,5 +32,5 @@ sse2_test (void)
}
}
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorized loops: 1" 1 "vect" } } */
/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */
I am sure you need a gazillion more testsuite adjustments? Thus, did you
really test the patch by a bootstrap and a toplevel make -k check for
regressions?
Index: opts.c
===================================================================
--- opts.c (revision 191490)
+++ opts.c (working copy)
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
#include "system.h"
#include "intl.h"
#include "coretypes.h"
+#include "dumpfile.h"
I don't see that you add a use for this. Please double-check all your include
file changes.
Index: gimple-pretty-print.c
===================================================================
--- gimple-pretty-print.c (revision 191490)
+++ gimple-pretty-print.c (working copy)
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ maybe_init_pretty_print (FILE *file)
}
...
Index: gimple-pretty-print.h
===================================================================
--- gimple-pretty-print.h (revision 191490)
+++ gimple-pretty-print.h (working copy)
@@ -31,6 +31,6 @@ extern void debug_gimple_seq (gimple_seq);
extern void print_gimple_seq (FILE *, gimple_seq, int, int);
extern void print_gimple_stmt (FILE *, gimple, int, int);
extern void print_gimple_expr (FILE *, gimple, int, int);
-extern void dump_gimple_stmt (pretty_printer *, gimple, int, int);
+extern void pp_gimple_stmt_1 (pretty_printer *, gimple, int, int);
it looks like changes to these files are only renaming of existing
dump_ functions
to print_ functions. Consider testing and applying those separately (hereby
pre-approved).
Index: profile.c
===================================================================
--- profile.c (revision 191490)
+++ profile.c (working copy)
@@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
please leave further changes to passes as followup, thus omit changes to this
file for the initial commit and submit it separately.
Index: rtl.h
===================================================================
--- rtl.h (revision 191490)
+++ rtl.h (working copy)
@@ -2482,8 +2482,8 @@ extern bool validate_subreg (enum machine_mode, en
/* In combine.c */
extern unsigned int extended_count (const_rtx, enum machine_mode, int);
extern rtx remove_death (unsigned int, rtx);
-extern void dump_combine_stats (FILE *);
-extern void dump_combine_total_stats (FILE *);
+extern void debug_combine_stats (FILE *);
+extern void print_combine_total_stats (FILE *);
extern rtx make_compound_operation (rtx, enum rtx_code);
Index: combine.c
===================================================================
--- combine.c (revision 191490)
+++ combine.c (working copy)
...
Likewise a patch just doing this re-name is pre-approved and should be checked
in separately.
@@ -410,6 +419,10 @@ handle_common_deferred_options (void)
stack_limit_rtx = gen_rtx_SYMBOL_REF (Pmode, ggc_strdup (opt->arg));
break;
+ case OPT_ftree_vectorizer_verbose_:
+ dump_remap_tree_vectorizer_verbose (opt->arg);
+ break;
+
can you please move that function here (opts-global.c) and make it static?
Index: Makefile.in
===================================================================
--- Makefile.in (revision 191490)
+++ Makefile.in (working copy)
remember to adjust for any changes you do above
Otherwise the patch looks ok to me.
Thanks,
Richard.
