On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> This is the complete patch for pass name fixes (with test case changes).
>
> David
>
>
I think your change caused:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49261
H.J.
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> > Please discard the previous one. This is the right one:
>
> See also Honzas comments (on the wrong patch presumably ;)).
>
> + if (node)
> +fprintf (dump_file, "\n;; Function %s (%s, funcdef_no=%d,
> decl_uid = %d, cgraph_uid=%d
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Please discard the previous one. This is the right one:
See also Honzas comments (on the wrong patch presumably ;)).
+ if (node)
+fprintf (dump_file, "\n;; Function %s (%s, funcdef_no=%d,
decl_uid = %d, cgraph_uid=%d)",
+
> Please discard the previous one. This is the right one:
>
> David
> Index: tree-pretty-print.c
> ===
> --- tree-pretty-print.c (revision 174424)
> +++ tree-pretty-print.c (working copy)
> @@ -3013,3 +3013,36 @@ pp_base_t
Please discard the previous one. This is the right one:
David
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> The new patch is attached. The test (c,c++,fortran, java, ada) is on going.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Tue, Ma
Honza, are you ok with the pass name change?
David
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> This is the complete patch for pass name fixes (with test case changes).
>
> This is ok if Honza thinks the profile pass
The new patch is attached. The test (c,c++,fortran, java, ada) is on going.
Thanks,
David
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> The attached a
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> The attached are two simple follow up patches
>>
>> 1) the first patch does some refactorization on function header
>> dumping (with more information printed)
>>
>> 2) the s
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> This is the complete patch for pass name fixes (with test case changes).
This is ok if Honza thinks the profile pass names make more sense this
way.
Thanks,
Richard.
> David
>
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Xinliang David Li wr
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> The attached are two simple follow up patches
>
> 1) the first patch does some refactorization on function header
> dumping (with more information printed)
>
> 2) the second patch cleans up some pass names. Part of the cleanup
> results
This is the complete patch for pass name fixes (with test case changes).
David
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> The attached are two simple follow up patches
>
> 1) the first patch does some refactorization on function header
> dumping (with more information printed)
The attached are two simple follow up patches
1) the first patch does some refactorization on function header
dumping (with more information printed)
2) the second patch cleans up some pass names. Part of the cleanup
results from a previous discussion with Honza -- a) rename
'tree_profile_ipa' in
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> The latest version that only exports 2 functions from passes.c.
Ok with ...
@@ -637,4 +637,8 @@ extern bool first_pass_instance;
/* Declare for plugins. */
extern void do_per_function_toporder (void (*) (void *), void *);
+extern v
The latest version that only exports 2 functions from passes.c.
David
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Joseph S. Myers
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Xinliang David Li
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>
>>> Ping. The link to the message:
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg01303.html
>>
>> I don't consider this a
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> + if (is_enable)
> +error ("unrecognized option -fenable");
> + else
> +error ("unrecognized option -fdisable");
>
> I think that should be fatal_error - Joseph?
No, all existing errors for unknown options are ordinary erro
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
>> Ping. The link to the message:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg01303.html
>
> I don't consider this an option handling patch. Patches adding whole new
> features involvi
Fair enough. Richard?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
>> Ping. The link to the message:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg01303.html
>
> I don't consider this an option handling patch. Pat
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Ping. The link to the message:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg01303.html
I don't consider this an option handling patch. Patches adding whole new
features involving new options should be reviewed by maintainers for the
part of
Ping. The link to the message:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg01303.html
Thanks,
David
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Ping.
>
> David
>
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Ok to check in this one?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Davi
Ping.
David
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Ok to check in this one?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 May 2011, David Li wrote:
>>
>>> + error ("Unrecognized option %s", is_enable ? "-fenable" :
Ok to check in this one?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011, David Li wrote:
>
>> + error ("Unrecognized option %s", is_enable ? "-fenable" :
>> "-fdisable");
>
>> + error ("Unknown pass %s specified in %s",
>> + phas
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:10:24AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> > davi...@google.com (David Li) writes:
>> >
>> >> -fdisable-tree-ccp1 <--- disable ccp1 for all functions
>> >> -f
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:10:24AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > davi...@google.com (David Li) writes:
> >
> >> -fdisable-tree-ccp1 <--- disable ccp1 for all functions
> >> -fenable-tree-cunroll=1 <--- enable complete unroll for the
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> davi...@google.com (David Li) writes:
>
>> -fdisable-tree-ccp1 <--- disable ccp1 for all functions
>> -fenable-tree-cunroll=1 <--- enable complete unroll for the function
>> whose cgraphnode uid is 1
>> -fdisable
davi...@google.com (David Li) writes:
> -fdisable-tree-ccp1<--- disable ccp1 for all functions
> -fenable-tree-cunroll=1 <--- enable complete unroll for the function
>whose cgraphnode uid is 1
> -fdisable-rtl-gcse2=1:100,300,400:1000 <-- disable gcse2 for
>
The attached is the revised patch. Bootstrap and regression tested in
trunk on x86-64/linux.
Ok for checkin?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Will fix the Changelog, and add documentation.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:26 PM, R
Will fix the Changelog, and add documentation.
Thanks,
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:37 PM, David Li wrote:
>>
>> In gcc, not all passes have user level control to turn it on/off, and
>> there is no way to flip on/off the pass for
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:37 PM, David Li wrote:
>
> In gcc, not all passes have user level control to turn it on/off, and
> there is no way to flip on/off the pass for a subset of functions. I
> implemented a generic option handling scheme in gcc to allow
> disabling/enabling any gcc pass for any
Thanks for the comment. Will fix those.
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011, David Li wrote:
>
>> + error ("Unrecognized option %s", is_enable ? "-fenable" :
>> "-fdisable");
>
>> + error ("Unknown pass %s specified in %s",
>> +
On Wed, 18 May 2011, David Li wrote:
> + error ("Unrecognized option %s", is_enable ? "-fenable" : "-fdisable");
> + error ("Unknown pass %s specified in %s",
> + phase_name,
> + is_enable ? "-fenable" : "-fdisable");
Follow GNU Coding Standards for diagnostics (start
In gcc, not all passes have user level control to turn it on/off, and
there is no way to flip on/off the pass for a subset of functions. I
implemented a generic option handling scheme in gcc to allow
disabling/enabling any gcc pass for any specified function(s). The
new options will be very usefu
32 matches
Mail list logo
