On August 13, 2020 2:57:04 AM GMT+02:00, Gary Oblock via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >Segher, > >If this was on the mainline and not in the middle of a >nontrivial optimization effort I would have filed a bug report >and not asked a silly question. 😉 > >I'm at a total lost as to how I could have caused the pass >numbers to be backward... but at least have I confirmed that's >what seems to be happening. It's not doing any harm to >anything except the sanity of anybody looking at the pass >dumps...
The inline dump is last written to during transform phase which is only carried out when the body is further optimized (thus again function at a time, not IPA). Which is why you see interleaving of dump appends. >Thanks, > >Gary >________________________________ >From: Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> >Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 5:45 PM >To: Gary Oblock <g...@amperecomputing.com> >Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> >Subject: Re: Silly question about pass numbers > >[EXTERNAL EMAIL NOTICE: This email originated from an external sender. >Please be mindful of safe email handling and proprietary information >protection practices.] > > >Hi! > >On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 08:26:34PM +0000, Gary Oblock wrote: >> The files are from the same run: >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 gary gary 3855 Aug 12 12:49 exe.ltrans0.ltrans.074i.cp >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 gary gary 16747 Aug 12 12:49 >exe.ltrans0.ltrans.087i.structure-reorg >> >> By the time .cp was created inlining results in only main existing. >> In the .structure-reorg file there are three functions. > >It does not matter what time the dump files were last opened (or >created >or written to). > >> Not only am I seeing things in .cp (beyond a shadow of a doubt) >> that were created in structure reorganization, inlining has also >> been done and its pass number of 79! >> >> Note, this is not hurting me in any way other than violating my >> beliefs about pass numbering. > >I cannot check on any of that because this is not in mainline GCC? >It is a lot easier if you ask us about problems we may be able to >reproduce ;-) Like maybe something with only cp and inline? > > >Segher
