Yes, in addition to what Richard said, I am working on a patch to add
-fopt-report option to gcc. The first users of this optimization
report are the vectorizer passes. The hope is that other passes would
add important optimization info to -fopt-report later. Of course,
there are various dump files
Hi,
I added -fopt-info option in r191883. This option allows one to
quickly see high-level optimization info instead of scanning several
verbose dump files.
However, -fopt-info implementation is not complete as it dumps
info from all the passes. It would be nice to add high level
pass-level filte
Hi,
This is a solicitation for help in converting passes to use the new
dump infrastructure. More context below.
I have enhanced the dump infrastructure in r191883, r191884. These
patches updated the tree/rtl dump facility so that passes do not
reference the dump file directly, but instead use a
> 1. OK, I understand that e.g.
>
> if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
>
>should be converted into:
>
> if (dump_kind_p (TDF_DETAILS))
>
>But what about current code that does not care about dump_flags?
>E.g. converting simple
>
> if (dump_file)
>
>to
>
>
> Indeed. I also wonder why dump_kind_p does not check if dumping is
> active at all? Thus, inside check dump_file / alternate dump_file for NULL.
I am testing a patch which includes a check for
dump_file/alternate_dump_file in dump_kind_p. This is in addition to
checking flags.
>> 2. dump_kind
> I don't like B), it is unlike everything else a pass does. You seem to
> use the new field to indicate a group - that makes it a flat hierarchy
> which might make it limiting (for example 'vect' may include both loop
> and scalar vectorization, but would 'loop' also include loop vectorization?).
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> How are dumps from the backend handled then?
I haven't really looked at backends. Perhaps they can be converted at
the cost of extra dispatch functions defined in dumpfile.c. For
example, we can add methods like 'dump_rtl_single ()' and
> 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 prefe
il 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
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>>>> You st
lared in this scope
>
> This is due to:
>
> 2012-10-24 Sharad Singhai
>
> * dumpfile.c (dump_enabled_p): Make it inline and move the definition
> to dumpfile.h.
> (dump_kind_p): Deleted. Functionality replaced by dump_enabled_p.
> Make al
I thought Steven was going to do that. If not, I can apply it.
Thanks,
Sharad
Sharad
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Is someone going to apply this patch?
>
> Thanks, David
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>> On Wed, Oc
Committed in r192788.
Thanks,
Sharad
Sharad
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
> I thought Steven was going to do that. If not, I can apply it.
>
> Thanks,
> Sharad
> Sharad
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
Hi Jakub,
My -fopt-info pass filtering patch
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02704.html) is being
reviewed and I hope to get this in by Nov. 5 for inclusion in gcc
4.8.0.
Thanks,
Sharad
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> I'd like to close
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> My -fopt-info pass filtering patch
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02704.html) is being
> reviewed and I hope to get this in by Nov. 5 for inclusion in gcc
> 4.8.0.
I just committed -fopt-i
I am really sorry about that. I am looking and will fix the breakage
or revert the patch shortly.
Thanks,
Sharad
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 12:52:04AM -0700, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Sharad Singh
ure.
Assuming tests pass, is it okay to commit the following?
Thanks,
Sharad
2012-11-01 Sharad Singhai
PR other/55164
* dumpfile.h (struct dump_file_info): Fix order of flags.
Index: dumpfile.h
===
--- dumpfile.h (revision 19
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>> I found the problem and the following patch fixes it. The issue with
>> my testing was that I was only looking at 'FAIL' lines but forgot to
>> tally t
about the conversion and
solicit for help.
Thanks,
Sharad
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> The one taking argument is changed to dump_enabled_phase (Sharad,
>> should it be dump_enabled_phas
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The new dump infrastructure was committed shortly before the trunk
>> entered stage 3.
>>
>> However, except the vectori
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
20 matches
Mail list logo
