Hi,
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/14/2011 11:11 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > > > > Hm, why? complex operations are lowered after a complex lowering
> > > > > > pass
> > > > > > has executed. they are still lowered on RTL, so I don't see why we
> > > > > > need
> > >
On 07/14/2011 11:11 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> Hm, why? complex operations are lowered after a complex lowering pass
>> has executed. they are still lowered on RTL, so I don't see why we need
>> to destroy them technically.
>
> Because it's PROP_*gimple*_lcx.:)
Shouldn't it then be PR
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/13/2011 12:54 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, PROP_gimple_lcx needs to be added to PROP_trees. I cannot approve
>> > the
>> > patch, unfortunately.
>>
>> Hm, why? complex operations are lowered after a complex lowering pass
On 07/13/2011 12:54 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Yes, PROP_gimple_lcx needs to be added to PROP_trees. I cannot approve the
> patch, unfortunately.
Hm, why? complex operations are lowered after a complex lowering pass
has executed. they are still lowered on RTL, so I don't see why we need
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/12/2011 06:07 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On this build of GCC (standard Fedora 15 gcc package of 4.6.0), the
>> relevant part of cfgexpand.c looks like this:
>>
>> struct rtl_opt_pass pass_expand =
>> {
>> {
>> RTL_PASS,
>> "e
On 07/12/2011 06:07 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On this build of GCC (standard Fedora 15 gcc package of 4.6.0), the
relevant part of cfgexpand.c looks like this:
struct rtl_opt_pass pass_expand =
{
{
RTL_PASS,
"expand", /* name */
[...snip...]
PROP_ssa | PROP_g
> "David" == David Malcolm writes:
David> This would be good. However, looking at, say,
David> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Tree-SSA-passes.html#Tree-SSA-passes
David> I don't see meaningful per-pass anchors there. I'm not familiar with
David> gcc's documentation toolchain; is ther
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 08:34 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 07/12/2011 02:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
> > You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously de
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:55 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 09:15 -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> FYI. If you just want text dump of gcc passes and their on|off
>> settings, option -fdump-passes can be used. This can be enhanced to
>> dump properties and TODOs.
>
> Thanks!
>
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 09:15 -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> FYI. If you just want text dump of gcc passes and their on|off
> settings, option -fdump-passes can be used. This can be enhanced to
> dump properties and TODOs.
Thanks!
I got a bit mystified by:
$ gcc -fdump-passes test.c
cc1: e
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 11:43 +0800, Mingjie Xing wrote:
> 2011/7/12 David Malcolm :
> > For fun over the weekend I wrote a python script (using my
> > gcc-python-plugin[1]) to render an SVG diagram of GCC's optimization
> > passes (or, at least, based on my understanding of them).
> >
> > This diagr
FYI. If you just want text dump of gcc passes and their on|off
settings, option -fdump-passes can be used. This can be enhanced to
dump properties and TODOs.
David
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:07 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 09:43 +0100, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>> On 12/07/11 08:2
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 09:43 +0100, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 12/07/11 08:22, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
> >
> > You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously des
On 12/07/11 17:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
It shows bugs in GCC's pass description, to be clear.
Paolo
That makes sense.
--
PMatos
On 07/12/2011 10:43 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously destroyed
by expand, and I find it unlikely that no pass ever introduces a
critical edge...
But the diagram s
On 07/12/2011 02:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously destroyed
by expand, and I find it unlikely that no pass ever introdu
On 12/07/11 08:22, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously destroyed
by expand, and I find it unlikely that no pass ever introduces a
On 07/11/2011 07:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Hope this is fun/helpful (and that I'm correctly interpreting the data!)
You are, and it shows some bugs even. gimple_lcx is obviously destroyed
by expand, and I find it unlikely that no pass ever introduces a
critical edge...
Paolo
2011/7/12 David Malcolm :
> For fun over the weekend I wrote a python script (using my
> gcc-python-plugin[1]) to render an SVG diagram of GCC's optimization
> passes (or, at least, based on my understanding of them).
>
> This diagram shows the various GCC optimization passes, arranged
> vertically
19 matches
Mail list logo
