Hello, > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg00670.html > > > > -- a patch to make dumps in several loop optimization passes > > > > (ivopts, vectorizer, ...) easier to read, by having scev & data > > > > dependence analysis dumps disabled by default > > > > > > Not completely OK. When I specify -details, I want every piece of > > > information produced by the pass. > > > It's fine with me if you want to add a specific -analysis switch that > > > is orthogonal from -details. But with your patch, -details would not > > > print everything in the scev and data dependence dumps. > > > > > > A simple tweak to this patch would give us both things. Make > > > TDF_DETAILS include TDF_ANALYSIS in its bitmask. In fact, we could > > > even have: > > > > > > #define TDF_DETAILS (1<<3) | TDF_ANALYSIS | TDF_STATS > > > > the point of this patch is that I want to be able to show everything > > -details shows now, except for what -analysis does (because the dumps > > covered by -analysis are almost never useful, except for the case there > > is a bug in one of those analyses). I do not really care whether > > -analysis dumps are shown by default, I just want to have a simple way > > how to disable them while still preserving the other -details dumps. Is > > that possible in the solution you propose? > > > Well, my intent with -details has always been to have the pass dump > *everything* it knows how to dump. I never really wanted to filter it out > in anyway. When you brought this up, I noticed that we never had > TDF_STATS included in TDF_DETAILS (perhaps because very few passes use > TDF_STATS), that's why I proposed adding it. > > You bring an interesting point, though. Should we allow each pass dictate > the meaning of TDF_DETAILS? Or would it be better to have a universal > meaning for it? > > My inclination is to have -details always show everything there is to show > without any filtering. This gives us a universal switch to use when > someone is not sure what information to dump. One can start with > everything and then work down from there. If a pass wants to do something > less than "dump everything", it should have other TDF_* flags. > > Thoughts?
another point to consider is that perhaps there might be some common way how to specify "detail level"; we already have -fsched-verbose=num and -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=num, perhaps we should avoid having a separate flag for each pass. Zdenek
