On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Richard Guenther > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: >>> The following patch implements the a new option that dumps gcc PASS >>> configuration. The sample output is attached. There is one >>> limitation: some placeholder passes that are named with '*xxx' are >>> note registered thus they are not listed. They are not important as >>> they can not be turned on/off anyway. >>> >>> The patch also enhanced -fenable-xxx and -fdisable-xx to allow a list >>> of function assembler names to be specified. >>> >>> Ok for trunk? >> >> Please split the patch. >> >> I'm not too happy how you dump the pass configuration. Why not simply, >> at a _single_ place, walk the pass tree? Instead of doing pieces of it >> at pass execution time when it's not already dumped - that really looks >> gross. > > Yes, that was the original plan -- but it has problems > 1) the dumper needs to know the root pass lists -- which can change > frequently -- it can be a long term maintanance burden; > 2) the centralized dumper needs to be done after option processing > 3) not sure if gate functions have any side effects or have dependencies on > cfun > > The proposed solutions IMHO is not that intrusive -- just three hooks > to do the dumping and tracking indentation.
Well, if you have a CU that is empty or optimized to nothing at some point you will not get a complete pass list. I suppose optimize attributes might also confuse output. Your solution might not be that intrusive but it is still ugly. I don't see 1) as an issue, for 2) you can just call the dumping from toplev_main before calling do_compile (), 3) gate functions shouldn't have side-effects, but as they could gate on optimize_for_speed () your option summary output will be bogus anyway. So - what is the output intended for if it isn't reliable? Richard. >> >> The documentation should also link this option to the -fenable/disable >> options as obviously the pass names in that dump are those to be >> used for those flags (and not readily available anywhere else). > > Ok. > >> >> I also think that it would be way more useful to note in the individual >> dump files the functions (at the place they would usually appear) that >> have the pass explicitly enabled/disabled. > > Ok -- for ipa passes or tree/rtl passes where all functions are > explicitly disabled. > > Thanks, > > David > >> >> Richard. >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> David >>> >> >
