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,
>>>>
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,
>>>
>>> The new dump infrastructure was committed shortly before the tru
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 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 vectorization passes, other passes do not dump
> anything in response to -fopt-info flags despite
Hi,
The new dump infrastructure was committed shortly before the trunk
entered stage 3.
However, except the vectorization passes, other passes do not dump
anything in response to -fopt-info flags despite the documentation. I
can prepare patches for a couple more passes so that they output more
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_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
The one taking argument is changed to dump_enabled_phase (Sharad,
should it be dump_enabled_phase_p ?).
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 tha
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Sharad Singhai 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)).
>
>> S
> 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
sounds good.
thanks,
David
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
A more simpler us
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> A more simpler use model is not to guard the dump statement at all --
>>> just express the intention a) what t
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
> 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
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
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> A more simpler use model is not to guard the dump statement at all --
>> just express the intention a) what to dump; b) as what kind or to
>> where
>>
>>
>> 1) I want to dump the
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> A more simpler use model is not to guard the dump statement at all --
> just express the intention a) what to dump; b) as what kind or to
> where
>
>
> 1) I want to dump the something as optimized message:
>
> dump_printf (MSG_OPTIMIZED
A more simpler use model is not to guard the dump statement at all --
just express the intention a) what to dump; b) as what kind or to
where
1) I want to dump the something as optimized message:
dump_printf (MSG_OPTIMIZED, "blah...")
dump_printf_loc (MSG_OPTIMIZED, "blah")
2) I want to du
> 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
> 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
>
>
)
fprintf (dump_file, ...);
the new style looks like this
if (dump_kind_p (...))
dump_printf (...)
[...]
Since the number of existing dump call sites is quite large, currently
both old *and* new schemes are in use. The plan is to gradually
transition passes to use the new dump infrastructure
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:21:29AM -0700, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is a solicitation for help in converting passes to use the new
>> dump infrastructure. More context below.
>
&g
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:21:29AM -0700, Sharad Singhai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a solicitation for help in converting passes to use the new
> dump infrastructure. More context below.
thanks for the email. I hoped you'd summarize what the long thread
about this (that I l
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
