On 07/28/2017 09:21 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Following simple patch adds support for dumping of BBs when it's a BB
>> that contains a label. That makes it easier for debugging as one can
>> find destination for an edge in dump file.
>>
>> Sample, before:
>>
>> foo (int a)
>> {
>> int D.1821;
>> int _1;
>> int _4;
>> int _5;
>>
>> <bb 2> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
>> switch (a_2(D)) <default: <L2> [INV] [count: INV], case 0: <L0> [INV]
>> [count: INV], case 1: <L1> [INV] [count: INV]>
>>
>> <L0> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
>> a_3 = a_2(D) + 2;
>>
>> <L1> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
>> _4 = 2;
>> goto <bb 6> (<L3>); [INV] [count: INV]
>>
>> <L2> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
>> _5 = 123;
>>
>> # _1 = PHI <_4(4), _5(5)>
>> <L3> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
>> return _1;
>>
>> }
>>
>> After:
>>
>> foo (int a)
>> {
>> int D.1821;
>> int _1;
>> int _4;
>> int _5;
>>
>> <bb 2> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
>> switch (a_2(D)) <default: <L2> [INV] [count: INV], case 0: <L0> [INV]
>> [count: INV], case 1: <L1> [INV] [count: INV]>
>>
>> <L0> (<bb 3>) [0.00%] [count: INV]:
>> a_3 = a_2(D) + 2;
>>
>> <L1> (<bb 4>) [0.00%] [count: INV]:
>> _4 = 2;
>> goto <bb 6> (<L3>); [INV] [count: INV]
>>
>> <L2> (<bb 5>) [0.00%] [count: INV]:
>> _5 = 123;
>>
>> # _1 = PHI <_4(4), _5(5)>
>> <L3> (<bb 6>) [0.00%] [count: INV]:
>> return _1;
>>
>> }
>>
>> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I think I prefer to always see
>
> <bb 3> ....:
>
> and if there's a label just dump that as well, thus
>
> <bb 3> ....:
> L0:
>
> I think that's how we dump the case with multiple labels. And always use the
> implicit bb N when dumping destinations (in gotos, switches, etc).
>
> That is, what we have now is IMHO premature prettifying losing BB
> indices in the dumps
> unnecessarily.
>
> Richard.
Hi.
I like your ideas, there's difference in between 7.1 and modified trunk:
foo (int a)
{
int D.1824;
int _1;
int _4;
int _6;
<bb 2> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
switch (a_2(D)) <default: <L2> [INV] [count: INV], case 0: <L0> [INV] [count:
INV], case 1: <L1> [INV] [count: INV]>
<L0> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
a_3 = a_2(D) + 2;
<L1> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
_4 = 2;
goto <bb 8> (<L6>); [INV] [count: INV]
<L2> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
<bb 6> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
a_5 = a_2(D) + 2;
label_XXX [0.00%] [count: INV]:
label_YYY [0.00%] [count: INV]:
_6 = 101;
# _1 = PHI <_4(4), _6(7)>
<L6> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
return _1;
}
after:
foo (int a)
{
int D.1824;
int _1;
int _4;
int _6;
<bb 2> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
switch (a_2(D)) <default: <bb 5> [INV] [count: INV], case 0: <bb 3> [INV]
[count: INV], case 1: <bb 4> [INV] [count: INV]>
<bb 3> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
<L0>:
a_3 = a_2(D) + 2;
<bb 4> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
<L1>:
_4 = 2;
goto <bb 8>; [INV] [count: INV]
<bb 5> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
<L2>:
<bb 6> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
a_5 = a_2(D) + 2;
<bb 7> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
label_XXX:
label_YYY:
_6 = 101;
<bb 8> [0.00%] [count: INV]:
# _1 = PHI <_4(4), _6(7)>
<L6>:
return _1;
}
Do you like it? What about indentation of labels, should I increase it or leave
it?
I guess there will be some tests that will need to be adjusted.
Martin
>
>> Martin
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2017-07-27 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
>>
>> * gcc.dg/builtin-unreachable-6.c: Update scanned pattern.
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/attr-hotcold-2.c: Likewise.
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ccp-18.c: Likewise.
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2017-07-27 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
>>
>> * gimple-pretty-print.c (dump_gimple_label): Dump BB number.
>> ---
>> gcc/gimple-pretty-print.c | 6 +++++-
>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/builtin-unreachable-6.c | 2 +-
>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/attr-hotcold-2.c | 4 ++--
>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ccp-18.c | 3 +--
>> 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>>
