Hi,
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/14/2011 11:11 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > > > > Hm, why? complex operations are lowered after a complex lowering
> > > > > > pass
> > > > > > has executed. they are still lowered on RTL, so I don't see why we
> > > > > > need
> > >
On 07/14/2011 11:11 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> Hm, why? complex operations are lowered after a complex lowering pass
>> has executed. they are still lowered on RTL, so I don't see why we need
>> to destroy them technically.
>
> Because it's PROP_*gimple*_lcx.:)
Shouldn't it then be PR
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/13/2011 12:54 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, PROP_gimple_lcx needs to be added to PROP_trees. I cannot approve
>> > the
>> > patch, unfortunately.
>>
>> Hm, why? complex operations are lowered after a complex lowering pass
On 07/13/2011 12:54 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Yes, PROP_gimple_lcx needs to be added to PROP_trees. I cannot approve the
> patch, unfortunately.
Hm, why? complex operations are lowered after a complex lowering pass
has executed. they are still lowered on RTL, so I don't see why we need
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/12/2011 06:07 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On this build of GCC (standard Fedora 15 gcc package of 4.6.0), the
>> relevant part of cfgexpand.c looks like this:
>>
>> struct rtl_opt_pass pass_expand =
>> {
>> {
>> RTL_PASS,
>> "e
On 07/12/2011 06:07 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On this build of GCC (standard Fedora 15 gcc package of 4.6.0), the
relevant part of cfgexpand.c looks like this:
struct rtl_opt_pass pass_expand =
{
{
RTL_PASS,
"expand", /* name */
[...snip...]
PROP_ssa | PROP_g
> "David" == David Malcolm writes:
David> This would be good. However, looking at, say,
David> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Tree-SSA-passes.html#Tree-SSA-passes
David> I don't see meaningful per-pass anchors there. I'm not familiar with
David> gcc's documentation toolchain; is ther
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 08:34 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 07/12/2011 02:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
> > You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously de
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:55 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 09:15 -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> FYI. If you just want text dump of gcc passes and their on|off
>> settings, option -fdump-passes can be used. This can be enhanced to
>> dump properties and TODOs.
>
> Thanks!
>
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 09:15 -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> FYI. If you just want text dump of gcc passes and their on|off
> settings, option -fdump-passes can be used. This can be enhanced to
> dump properties and TODOs.
Thanks!
I got a bit mystified by:
$ gcc -fdump-passes test.c
cc1: e
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 11:43 +0800, Mingjie Xing wrote:
> 2011/7/12 David Malcolm :
> > For fun over the weekend I wrote a python script (using my
> > gcc-python-plugin[1]) to render an SVG diagram of GCC's optimization
> > passes (or, at least, based on my understanding of them).
> >
> > This diagr
FYI. If you just want text dump of gcc passes and their on|off
settings, option -fdump-passes can be used. This can be enhanced to
dump properties and TODOs.
David
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:07 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 09:43 +0100, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>> On 12/07/11 08:2
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 09:43 +0100, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 12/07/11 08:22, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
> >
> > You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously des
On 12/07/11 17:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
It shows bugs in GCC's pass description, to be clear.
Paolo
That makes sense.
--
PMatos
On 07/12/2011 10:43 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously destroyed
by expand, and I find it unlikely that no pass ever introduces a
critical edge...
But the diagram s
On 07/12/2011 02:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously destroyed
by expand, and I find it unlikely that no pass ever introdu
On 12/07/11 08:22, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously destroyed
by expand, and I find it unlikely that no pass ever introduces a
On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously destroyed
by expand, and I find it unlikely that no pass ever introduces a
critical edge...
Paolo
2011/7/12 David Malcolm :
> For fun over the weekend I wrote a python script (using my
> gcc-python-plugin[1]) to render an SVG diagram of GCC's optimization
> passes (or, at least, based on my understanding of them).
>
> This diagram shows the various GCC optimization passes, arranged
> vertically
For fun over the weekend I wrote a python script (using my
gcc-python-plugin[1]) to render an SVG diagram of GCC's optimization
passes (or, at least, based on my understanding of them).
This diagram shows the various GCC optimization passes, arranged
vertically, showing child passes via indentatio
20 matches
Mail list logo
