On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: > The one taking argument is changed to dump_enabled_phase (Sharad, > should it be dump_enabled_phase_p ?).
Yes, I renamed the old method to dump_enabled_phase. I would rename it further to dump_enabled_p to make it clear. > > Sharad, it may be better to throwing first a trivial patch that > introduces dump_enabled_p () without argument, and leave the clean up > of vectorizer code as a separate one. Do this earlier so that other > contributors have time to cleanup the dumps. Please also resend to the > email list to summarize the new standard way of debug/msg dump. Yes, I would do that. Thanks, Sharad > > thanks, > > David > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Sharad Singhai <sing...@google.com> wrote: >>>> You still have the issue that // regular stuff may appear to possibly >>>> clobber any_dump_enabled_p and thus repeated any_dump_enabled_p >>>> checks are not optimized by the compiler (we don't have predicated >>>> value-numbering (yet)). >>> >>>> So I prefer the guard. I suppose after this discussion I prefer >>>> a any_dump_enabled_p () guard instead of one with (repeated) flags. >>> >>> I have updated 'dump_enabled_p ()' a little bit in >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01690.html to avoid >>> checking of flags. If this looks better, I can update the guard >>> conditions in vectorization passes from 'if (dump_kind_p (...))' to >>> 'if (dump_enabled_p ())'. >> >> In the patch dump_enabled_p still has an integer argument. But yes, after >> this discussion please make it argument-less and work towards dropping >> dump_kind_p (from the public interface at least). >> >> Thanks, >> Richard. >> >>> Thanks, >>> Sharad
