On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Patch is temporally rolled back.
Richard, looks like deeper pass manager cleanup is needed -- I would
like to delay that. For now, this leaves us two choices -- 1) do cfunc
push/pop, or 2) do pass dump while
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
Patch is temporally rolled back.
Richard, looks like deeper pass manager cleanup is needed -- I would
like to delay that. For
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Please review the attached two patches.
In the first patch, gate functions are cleaned up. All the per
function legality checks are moved into the executor and the
optimization heuristic checks (optimize for size)
It also breaks arm backend.
../trunk/configure '--build=x86_64-build_pc-linux-gnu'
'--host=x86_64-build_pc-linux-gnu'
'--target=arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi'
'--with-sysroot=/home/carrot/x-tools/arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi/arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi/sys-root'
'--disable-multilib' '--with-float=soft'
Can you send me a trace? I can not reproduce the problem.
David
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Please review the attached two patches.
In the first patch, gate functions are
Though I can not reproduce it, it might be related to what Richard
mentioned in the review -- The TODO's are executed though the pass is
not. This opened up a can of worm -- I will revert the patches for
now.
David
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun
Patch is temporally rolled back.
Richard, looks like deeper pass manager cleanup is needed -- I would
like to delay that. For now, this leaves us two choices -- 1) do cfunc
push/pop, or 2) do pass dump while executing. None of them is ideal,
but safe enough.
Thanks,
David
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Please review the attached two patches.
In the first patch, gate functions are cleaned up. All the per
function legality checks are moved into the executor and the
optimization heuristic checks (optimize for size)
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The dump-pass patch with test case.
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
David
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Please review the attached two patches.
In the first patch, gate
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Please take a look at the revised one.
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
Thanks,
David
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Xinliang David Li
Ok -- that sounds good.
David
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011
Please review the attached two patches.
In the first patch, gate functions are cleaned up. All the per
function legality checks are moved into the executor and the
optimization heuristic checks (optimize for size) remain in the
gators. These allow the the following overriding order:
common
The dump-pass patch with test case.
David
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Please review the attached two patches.
In the first patch, gate functions are cleaned up. All the per
function legality checks are moved into the executor and the
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The attached is the split #1 patch that enhances -fenable/disable.
Ok after testing?
I expect the testcases will be quite fragile, so while I appreciate
test coverage for new options I think we should go without those
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
This is the version of the patch that walks through pass lists.
Ok with this one?
+/* Dump all optimization passes. */
+
+void
+dump_passes (void)
+{
+ struct cgraph_node *n, *node = NULL;
+ tree save_fndecl =
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The attached is the split #1 patch that enhances -fenable/disable.
Ok after testing?
I expect the testcases will be quite fragile, so
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The attached is the split #1 patch that enhances
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
This is the version of the patch that walks through pass lists.
Ok with this one?
+/* Dump all optimization passes. */
+
+void
Please take a look at the revised one.
Thanks,
David
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The attached is the split #1 patch that enhances -fenable/disable.
Ok after
This is the patch with max id removed.
Thanks,
David
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Is this patch ok?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The attached is the split #1 patch that enhances -fenable/disable.
Ok after testing?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On
Is this one ok?
Thanks,
David
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
This is the version of the patch that walks through pass lists.
Ok with this one?
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1,
This is the version of the patch that walks through pass lists.
Ok with this one?
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Xinliang
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
The attached is the split #1 patch that enhances -fenable/disable.
Ok after testing?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:16 AM, 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,
The attached is patch-2 (-fdump-passes) and a sample output:
Ok for trunk?
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:16 AM, 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
26 matches
Mail list logo
