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
that involve any kind of UID. Those which use assembler names
also will fail randomly dependent on how targets mangle their
functions - so I think we have to drop all testcases.
Also
+/* A helper function to determine if an identifier is valid to
+ be an assembler name (better to use target specific hook). */
+
+static bool
+is_valid_assembler_name (const char *str)
+{
+ const char *p = str;
+ char c;
+
+ c = *p;
+ if (!((c >= 'a' && c <= 'z')
+ || (c >= 'A' && c <= 'Z')
+ || *p == '_'))
+ return false;
+
+ p++;
+ while ((c = *p))
+ {
+ if (!((c >= 'a' && c <= 'z')
+ || (c >= 'A' && c <= 'Z')
+ || (c >= '0' && c <= '9')
+ || *p == '_'))
+ return false;
+ p++;
+ }
+
+ return true;
+}
why all that complicated checks? Why not just check for p[0]
in [^0-9] and re-structure the range parsing to switch between
UIDs and assembler-names that way?
Thanks,
Richard.
> 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, 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.
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
