On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 14:59 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:01 PM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 11:16 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:58 AM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 15:46 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> >> On 03/10/14 13:22, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> >> > Gimple function dumps contain the types of parameters, but not of the
> >> >> > return type.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The attached patch fixes this omission; here's an example of the
> >> >> > before/after diff:
> >> >> > $ diff -up /tmp/pr23401.c.004t.gimple.old
> >> >> > /tmp/pr23401.c.004t.gimple.new
> >> >> > --- /tmp/pr23401.c.004t.gimple.old 2014-03-10 13:40:08.972063541
> >> >> > -0400
> >> >> > +++ /tmp/pr23401.c.004t.gimple.new 2014-03-10 13:39:49.346515464
> >> >> > -0400
> >> >> > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> >> >> > +int
> >> >> > ffff (int i)
> >> >> > {
> >> >> > int D.1731;
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Successfully bootstrapped and regrtested on x86_64 Linux (Fedora 20).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A couple of test cases needed tweaking, since they were counting the
> >> >> > number of occurrences of "int" in the gimple dump, which thus changed
> >> >> > for functions returning int (like the one above).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > OK for next stage 1?
> >> >> Conceptually OK. As Richi notes, the work here is in fixing up the
> >> >> testsuite. I didn't see a reply to Richi's question, particularly WRT
> >> >> the Fortran testsuite.
> >> >
> >> > I'm attaching a revised version of the patch which adds the use of
> >> > TDF_SLIM (though it didn't appear to be necessary in the test I did of a
> >> > function returning a struct).
> >> >
> >> > Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64 Linux (Fedora 20),
> >> > using:
> >> > --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,java,fortran,ada,go,lto
> >> >
> >> > I didn't see any new failures from this in the testsuite, in particular
> >> > gfortran.sum. Here's a comparison of the before/after test results,
> >> > generated using my "jamais-vu" tool [1], with comments added by me
> >> > inline:
> >> >
> >> > Comparing 16 common .sum files
> >> > ------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/acats.sum : total: 2320 PASS: 2320
> >> > gcc/testsuite/g++/g++.sum : total: 90421 FAIL: 3 PASS: 86969 XFAIL: 445
> >> > UNSUPPORTED: 3004
> >> > gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum : total: 110458 FAIL: 45 PASS: 108292 XFAIL:
> >> > 265 XPASS: 33 UNSUPPORTED: 1823
> >> > gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.sum : total: 45717 PASS: 45600 XFAIL:
> >> > 52 UNSUPPORTED: 65
> >> > gcc/testsuite/gnat/gnat.sum : total: 1255 PASS: 1234 XFAIL: 18
> >> > UNSUPPORTED: 3
> >> > gcc/testsuite/go/go.sum : total: 7266 PASS: 7258 XFAIL: 1 UNTESTED: 6
> >> > UNSUPPORTED: 1
> >> > gcc/testsuite/obj-c++/obj-c++.sum : total: 1450 PASS: 1354 XFAIL: 10
> >> > UNSUPPORTED: 86
> >> > gcc/testsuite/objc/objc.sum : total: 2973 PASS: 2893 XFAIL: 6
> >> > UNSUPPORTED: 74
> >> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/boehm-gc/testsuite/boehm-gc.sum : total: 13
> >> > PASS: 12 UNSUPPORTED: 1
> >> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite/libatomic.sum : total: 54
> >> > PASS: 54
> >> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libffi/testsuite/libffi.sum : total: 1856
> >> > PASS: 1801 UNSUPPORTED: 55
> >> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libgo/libgo.sum : total: 122 PASS: 122
> >> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.sum : total: 2420
> >> > PASS: 2420
> >> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libitm/testsuite/libitm.sum : total: 30 PASS:
> >> > 26 XFAIL: 3 UNSUPPORTED: 1
> >> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libjava/testsuite/libjava.sum : total: 2586
> >> > PASS: 2582 XFAIL: 4
> >> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.sum : total:
> >> > 10265 PASS: 10000 XFAIL: 41 UNSUPPORTED: 224
> >> >
> >> > (...i.e. the totals were unchanged between unpatched/patched for all of
> >> > the .sum files; and yes, Fortran was tested. Should there be a
> >> > gcj.sum?)
> >> >
> >> > Tests that went away in gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum: 2
> >> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr23401.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "int" 5
> >> > PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr27810.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "int" 3
> >> >
> >> > Tests appeared in gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum: 2
> >> > ----------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr23401.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "int" 6
> >> > PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr27810.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "int" 4
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > (...my comparison tool isn't smart enough yet to tie these "went
> >> > away"/"appeared" results together; they reflect the fixups from the
> >> > patch).
> >> >
> >> > Tests that went away in gcc/testsuite/go/go.sum: 2
> >> > --------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > PASS: go.test/test/dwarf/dwarf.dir/main.go (lots of refs to path of
> >> > build) compilation, -O2 -g
> >> > PASS: go.test/test/dwarf/dwarf.dir/main.go (lots of refs to path of
> >> > build) execution, -O2 -g
> >> >
> >> > Tests appeared in gcc/testsuite/go/go.sum: 2
> >> > --------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > PASS: go.test/test/dwarf/dwarf.dir/main.go (lots of refs to path of
> >> > build) compilation, -O2 -g
> >> > PASS: go.test/test/dwarf/dwarf.dir/main.go (lots of refs to path of
> >> > build) execution, -O2 -g
> >> >
> >> > (...I hand edited the above, this main.go test embeds numerous paths,
> >> > which change between the two builds; so nothing really changed here).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Are the above results sane?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> > I'm not sure why I didn't see the failures Richi described; the patch
> >> > does appear to work (though again, should there be a gcj.sum? Did I miss
> >> > any frontends?)
> >>
> >> Maybe I dumped
> >>
> >> int foo (...
> >>
> >> vs. your
> >>
> >> int
> >> foo (...
> >>
> >> and that made the difference.
> >>
> >> > OK for trunk?
> >>
> >> Ok.
> >
> > Thanks; committed to trunk as r209902.
>
> Btw, I now see
>
> int
> int integer_zerop(const_tree) (const union tree_node * expr)
> {
> union tree_node * D.86619;
> union tree_node * exp;
>
> thus duplicated return type.
>
> So - can you either revert or fix that?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
Sorry about this.
I dug into the decl-related dump output:
int
int integer_zerop(const_tree) (const union tree_node * expr)
to see where each component comes from:
int
^^^ from r209902
int integer_zerop(const_tree) (const union tree_node * expr)
^^^^^^^function_name ()^^^^^^ ^^^dump_function_to_file ()^^^
Clearly I didn't test enough with C++; what I committed works with C,
but function_name calls fndecl_name which calls
lang_hooks.decl_printable_name with verbosity 2.
The C++ langhook for decl_printable_name includes the return type at
v=2, whereas the default lhd_decl_printable_name merely returns
IDENTIFIER_POINTER (DECL_NAME (decl))
hence the duplicated return type for C++ (and possibly java), and single
copy of the return type for C.
Note also that the C++ langhook at v=2 also includes the parameter
types, which is why the C++ dump contains the param types twice; i.e.:
int
int integer_zerop(const_tree) (const union tree_node * expr)
^^^^types^^^ ^^^^^^types and names^^^^^^^^^
Is the duplication of the parameter signature regarded as an issue [1],
or expected behavior given that language's support for overloading? (I
see this duplication with e.g. 4.8, fwiw).
Dave
[1] if so, perhaps some kind of tweaking of the verbosity used when
calling decl_printable_name from dump_function_to_file could fix this?
though I imagine the redundant info can make debugging easier
