On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 04:37:26PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 19:31 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 10/12/2016 07:48 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > This patch implements a "compact" mode for print_rtx_function,
> > > implementing most of the ideas above.
> > >
> > > Example of output can be seen here:
> > > https://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/gcc/2016-10-12/test-switch-comp
> > > act.rtl
> > > which can be contrasted with the non-compact output here:
> > > https://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/gcc/2016-10-12/test-switch-nonc
> > > ompact.rtl
> > >
> > > It adds the "c" prefix to the insn names, so we get "cinsn", etc.
> > > However,
> > > it does lead to things like this:
> > >
> > > (ccode_label 56 8 "")
> > >
> > > which gives me pause: would the "ccode" in "ccode_label" be
> > > confusing? (compared
> > > to "ccmode"). An alternative might be to have a "compact-insn
> > > -chain" vs
> > > "insn-chain" wrapper element, expressing that this is a compact
> > > dump.
> --- a/gcc/print-rtl.c
> +++ b/gcc/print-rtl.c
...
> @@ -284,7 +292,7 @@ print_rtx_operand_code_i (const_rtx in_rtx, int idx)
> if (INSN_HAS_LOCATION (in_insn))
> {
> expanded_location xloc = insn_location (in_insn);
> - fprintf (outfile, " %s:%i", xloc.file, xloc.line);
> + fprintf (outfile, " \"%s\":%i", xloc.file, xloc.line);
Was this change intentional? We've got to update a scan-assembler
statement in an s390 test to reflect the additional double quotes
in the output string. Not a big deal, just wanted to make sure
this is not an accident.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
