| Message ID | CAFiYyc0j53_FJmtxm3bUbS89P+hdEWz9yw22Satf3C9azEeQMg@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Thanks for the review. A couple of comments inline: > Some minor issues: > > * c/c-decl.c (c_write_global_declarations): Use different method to > determine if the dump has ben initialized. > * cp/decl2.c (cp_write_global_declarations): Ditto. > * testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c: Fix test. > > these subdirs all have their separate ChangeLog entry from where the > directory name is omitted. > > Index: tree-dump.c > =================================================================== > --- tree-dump.c (revision 191490) > +++ tree-dump.c (working copy) > @@ -24,9 +24,11 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see > #include "coretypes.h" > #include "tm.h" > #include "tree.h" > +#include "gimple-pretty-print.h" > #include "splay-tree.h" > #include "filenames.h" > #include "diagnostic-core.h" > +#include "rtl.h" > > what do you need gimple-pretty-print.h and rtl.h for? > > + > +extern void dump_bb (FILE *, basic_block, int, int); > + > > that should be declared in some header > > +/* Dump gimple statement GS with SPC indentation spaces and > + EXTRA_DUMP_FLAGS on the dump streams if DUMP_KIND is enabled. */ > + > +void > +dump_gimple_stmt (int dump_kind, int extra_dump_flags, gimple gs, int spc) > +{ > > the gimple stuff really belongs in to gimple-pretty-print.c This dump_gimple_stmt () is just a dispatcher, which uses internal data structure such as dump streams/flags. If I move it into gimple-pretty-print.c, then I would have to export those streams/flags. I was hoping to avoid it by keeping all dump_* () methods together in dumpfile.c (earlier in tree-dump.c). Thus, later one could just make dump_file/dump_flags static when all the passes have converted to this scheme. > > (parts of tree-dump.c should be moved to a new file dumpfile.c) > > +/* Dump tree T using EXTRA_DUMP_FLAGS on dump streams if DUMP_KIND is > + enabled. */ > + > +void > +dump_generic_expr (int dump_kind, int extra_dump_flags, tree t) > +{ > > belongs to tree-pretty-print.c (to where the routines are it calls) This is again a dispatcher for dump_generic_expr () which writes to the appropriate stream depending upon dump_kind. > > +int > +dump_start (int phase, int *flag_ptr) > +{ > > perfect candidate for dumpfile.c > > You can do this re-shuffling as followup, but please try to not include rtl.h > or gimple-pretty-print.h from tree-dump.c. Thus re-shuffling required by that > do now. tree-dump.c should only know about dumping 'tree'. Okay, I have moved relevant methods into dumpfile.c. > > Index: tree-dump.h > =================================================================== > --- tree-dump.h (revision 191490) > +++ tree-dump.h (working copy) > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see > #ifndef GCC_TREE_DUMP_H > #define GCC_TREE_DUMP_H > > +#include "input.h" > > probably no longer required. > > Index: dumpfile.h > =================================================================== > --- dumpfile.h (revision 191490) > +++ dumpfile.h (working copy) > @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see > #ifndef GCC_DUMPFILE_H > #define GCC_DUMPFILE_H 1 > > +#include "coretypes.h" > +#include "input.h" > > likewise for input.h. > > Index: testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c > =================================================================== > --- testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c (revision 191490) > +++ testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c (working copy) > @@ -32,5 +32,5 @@ sse2_test (void) > } > } > > -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorized loops: 1" 1 "vect" } } */ > /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */ > > I am sure you need a gazillion more testsuite adjustments? Thus, did you > really test the patch by a bootstrap and a toplevel make -k check for > regressions? > > Index: opts.c > =================================================================== > --- opts.c (revision 191490) > +++ opts.c (working copy) > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see > #include "system.h" > #include "intl.h" > #include "coretypes.h" > +#include "dumpfile.h" > > I don't see that you add a use for this. Please double-check all your include > file changes. > > Index: gimple-pretty-print.c > =================================================================== > --- gimple-pretty-print.c (revision 191490) > +++ gimple-pretty-print.c (working copy) > @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ maybe_init_pretty_print (FILE *file) > } > ... > Index: gimple-pretty-print.h > =================================================================== > --- gimple-pretty-print.h (revision 191490) > +++ gimple-pretty-print.h (working copy) > @@ -31,6 +31,6 @@ extern void debug_gimple_seq (gimple_seq); > extern void print_gimple_seq (FILE *, gimple_seq, int, int); > extern void print_gimple_stmt (FILE *, gimple, int, int); > extern void print_gimple_expr (FILE *, gimple, int, int); > -extern void dump_gimple_stmt (pretty_printer *, gimple, int, int); > +extern void pp_gimple_stmt_1 (pretty_printer *, gimple, int, int); > > it looks like changes to these files are only renaming of existing > dump_ functions > to print_ functions. Consider testing and applying those separately (hereby > pre-approved). > > Index: profile.c > =================================================================== > --- profile.c (revision 191490) > +++ profile.c (working copy) > @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see > > please leave further changes to passes as followup, thus omit changes to this > file for the initial commit and submit it separately. Okay. > > > Index: rtl.h > =================================================================== > --- rtl.h (revision 191490) > +++ rtl.h (working copy) > @@ -2482,8 +2482,8 @@ extern bool validate_subreg (enum machine_mode, en > /* In combine.c */ > extern unsigned int extended_count (const_rtx, enum machine_mode, int); > extern rtx remove_death (unsigned int, rtx); > -extern void dump_combine_stats (FILE *); > -extern void dump_combine_total_stats (FILE *); > +extern void debug_combine_stats (FILE *); > +extern void print_combine_total_stats (FILE *); > extern rtx make_compound_operation (rtx, enum rtx_code); > Index: combine.c > =================================================================== > --- combine.c (revision 191490) > +++ combine.c (working copy) > ... > > Likewise a patch just doing this re-name is pre-approved and should be checked > in separately. > > @@ -410,6 +419,10 @@ handle_common_deferred_options (void) > stack_limit_rtx = gen_rtx_SYMBOL_REF (Pmode, ggc_strdup (opt->arg)); > break; > > + case OPT_ftree_vectorizer_verbose_: > + dump_remap_tree_vectorizer_verbose (opt->arg); > + break; > + > > can you please move that function here (opts-global.c) and make it static? Done. > > Index: Makefile.in > =================================================================== > --- Makefile.in (revision 191490) > +++ Makefile.in (working copy) > > remember to adjust for any changes you do above > > Otherwise the patch looks ok to me. > > Thanks, > Richard. Thanks, Sharad
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: > Thanks for the review. A couple of comments inline: > >> Some minor issues: >> >> * c/c-decl.c (c_write_global_declarations): Use different method to >> determine if the dump has ben initialized. >> * cp/decl2.c (cp_write_global_declarations): Ditto. >> * testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c: Fix test. >> >> these subdirs all have their separate ChangeLog entry from where the >> directory name is omitted. >> >> Index: tree-dump.c >> =================================================================== >> --- tree-dump.c (revision 191490) >> +++ tree-dump.c (working copy) >> @@ -24,9 +24,11 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see >> #include "coretypes.h" >> #include "tm.h" >> #include "tree.h" >> +#include "gimple-pretty-print.h" >> #include "splay-tree.h" >> #include "filenames.h" >> #include "diagnostic-core.h" >> +#include "rtl.h" >> >> what do you need gimple-pretty-print.h and rtl.h for? >> >> + >> +extern void dump_bb (FILE *, basic_block, int, int); >> + >> >> that should be declared in some header >> >> +/* Dump gimple statement GS with SPC indentation spaces and >> + EXTRA_DUMP_FLAGS on the dump streams if DUMP_KIND is enabled. */ >> + >> +void >> +dump_gimple_stmt (int dump_kind, int extra_dump_flags, gimple gs, int spc) >> +{ >> >> the gimple stuff really belongs in to gimple-pretty-print.c > > This dump_gimple_stmt () is just a dispatcher, which uses internal > data structure such as dump streams/flags. If I move it into > gimple-pretty-print.c, then I would have to export those > streams/flags. I was hoping to avoid it by keeping all dump_* () > methods together in dumpfile.c (earlier in tree-dump.c). Thus, later > one could just make dump_file/dump_flags static when all the passes > have converted to this scheme. > You can make the flags/streams global but only expose them via inline accessors in the header file. David >> >> (parts of tree-dump.c should be moved to a new file dumpfile.c) >> >> +/* Dump tree T using EXTRA_DUMP_FLAGS on dump streams if DUMP_KIND is >> + enabled. */ >> + >> +void >> +dump_generic_expr (int dump_kind, int extra_dump_flags, tree t) >> +{ >> >> belongs to tree-pretty-print.c (to where the routines are it calls) > > This is again a dispatcher for dump_generic_expr () which writes to > the appropriate stream depending upon dump_kind. > >> >> +int >> +dump_start (int phase, int *flag_ptr) >> +{ >> >> perfect candidate for dumpfile.c >> >> You can do this re-shuffling as followup, but please try to not include rtl.h >> or gimple-pretty-print.h from tree-dump.c. Thus re-shuffling required by that >> do now. tree-dump.c should only know about dumping 'tree'. > > Okay, I have moved relevant methods into dumpfile.c. > >> >> Index: tree-dump.h >> =================================================================== >> --- tree-dump.h (revision 191490) >> +++ tree-dump.h (working copy) >> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see >> #ifndef GCC_TREE_DUMP_H >> #define GCC_TREE_DUMP_H >> >> +#include "input.h" >> >> probably no longer required. >> >> Index: dumpfile.h >> =================================================================== >> --- dumpfile.h (revision 191490) >> +++ dumpfile.h (working copy) >> @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see >> #ifndef GCC_DUMPFILE_H >> #define GCC_DUMPFILE_H 1 >> >> +#include "coretypes.h" >> +#include "input.h" >> >> likewise for input.h. >> >> Index: testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c >> =================================================================== >> --- testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c (revision 191490) >> +++ testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c (working copy) >> @@ -32,5 +32,5 @@ sse2_test (void) >> } >> } >> >> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } } */ >> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorized loops: 1" 1 "vect" } } */ >> /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */ >> >> I am sure you need a gazillion more testsuite adjustments? Thus, did you >> really test the patch by a bootstrap and a toplevel make -k check for >> regressions? >> >> Index: opts.c >> =================================================================== >> --- opts.c (revision 191490) >> +++ opts.c (working copy) >> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see >> #include "system.h" >> #include "intl.h" >> #include "coretypes.h" >> +#include "dumpfile.h" >> >> I don't see that you add a use for this. Please double-check all your include >> file changes. >> >> Index: gimple-pretty-print.c >> =================================================================== >> --- gimple-pretty-print.c (revision 191490) >> +++ gimple-pretty-print.c (working copy) >> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ maybe_init_pretty_print (FILE *file) >> } >> ... >> Index: gimple-pretty-print.h >> =================================================================== >> --- gimple-pretty-print.h (revision 191490) >> +++ gimple-pretty-print.h (working copy) >> @@ -31,6 +31,6 @@ extern void debug_gimple_seq (gimple_seq); >> extern void print_gimple_seq (FILE *, gimple_seq, int, int); >> extern void print_gimple_stmt (FILE *, gimple, int, int); >> extern void print_gimple_expr (FILE *, gimple, int, int); >> -extern void dump_gimple_stmt (pretty_printer *, gimple, int, int); >> +extern void pp_gimple_stmt_1 (pretty_printer *, gimple, int, int); >> >> it looks like changes to these files are only renaming of existing >> dump_ functions >> to print_ functions. Consider testing and applying those separately (hereby >> pre-approved). >> >> Index: profile.c >> =================================================================== >> --- profile.c (revision 191490) >> +++ profile.c (working copy) >> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see >> >> please leave further changes to passes as followup, thus omit changes to this >> file for the initial commit and submit it separately. > > Okay. > >> >> >> Index: rtl.h >> =================================================================== >> --- rtl.h (revision 191490) >> +++ rtl.h (working copy) >> @@ -2482,8 +2482,8 @@ extern bool validate_subreg (enum machine_mode, en >> /* In combine.c */ >> extern unsigned int extended_count (const_rtx, enum machine_mode, int); >> extern rtx remove_death (unsigned int, rtx); >> -extern void dump_combine_stats (FILE *); >> -extern void dump_combine_total_stats (FILE *); >> +extern void debug_combine_stats (FILE *); >> +extern void print_combine_total_stats (FILE *); >> extern rtx make_compound_operation (rtx, enum rtx_code); >> Index: combine.c >> =================================================================== >> --- combine.c (revision 191490) >> +++ combine.c (working copy) >> ... >> >> Likewise a patch just doing this re-name is pre-approved and should be checked >> in separately. >> >> @@ -410,6 +419,10 @@ handle_common_deferred_options (void) >> stack_limit_rtx = gen_rtx_SYMBOL_REF (Pmode, ggc_strdup (opt->arg)); >> break; >> >> + case OPT_ftree_vectorizer_verbose_: >> + dump_remap_tree_vectorizer_verbose (opt->arg); >> + break; >> + >> >> can you please move that function here (opts-global.c) and make it static? > > Done. > >> >> Index: Makefile.in >> =================================================================== >> --- Makefile.in (revision 191490) >> +++ Makefile.in (working copy) >> >> remember to adjust for any changes you do above >> >> Otherwise the patch looks ok to me. >> >> Thanks, >> Richard. > > Thanks, > Sharad
Resend to gcc-patches I have addressed the comments by fixing all the minor issues, bootstrapped and tested on x86_64. I did the recommended reshuffling by moving non-tree code from tree-dump.c into a new file dumpfile.c. I committed two successive revisions r191883 Main patch with the dump infrastructure changes. However, I accidentally left out a new file, dumpfile.c. r191884 Added dumpfile.c, and did the renaming of dump_* functions from gimple_pretty_print.[ch]. As things stand right now, r191883 is broken because of the missing file 'dumpfile.c', which the very next commit fixes. Anyone who got broken revision r191883, please svn update. I am really very sorry about that. I have a couple more minor patches which deal with renaming; I plan to address those later. Thanks, Sharad > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> >> wrote: >> > Thanks for the review. A couple of comments inline: >> > >> >> Some minor issues: >> >> >> >> * c/c-decl.c (c_write_global_declarations): Use different >> >> method to >> >> determine if the dump has ben initialized. >> >> * cp/decl2.c (cp_write_global_declarations): Ditto. >> >> * testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c: Fix test. >> >> >> >> these subdirs all have their separate ChangeLog entry from where the >> >> directory name is omitted. >> >> >> >> Index: tree-dump.c >> >> =================================================================== >> >> --- tree-dump.c (revision 191490) >> >> +++ tree-dump.c (working copy) >> >> @@ -24,9 +24,11 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see >> >> #include "coretypes.h" >> >> #include "tm.h" >> >> #include "tree.h" >> >> +#include "gimple-pretty-print.h" >> >> #include "splay-tree.h" >> >> #include "filenames.h" >> >> #include "diagnostic-core.h" >> >> +#include "rtl.h" >> >> >> >> what do you need gimple-pretty-print.h and rtl.h for? >> >> >> >> + >> >> +extern void dump_bb (FILE *, basic_block, int, int); >> >> + >> >> >> >> that should be declared in some header >> >> >> >> +/* Dump gimple statement GS with SPC indentation spaces and >> >> + EXTRA_DUMP_FLAGS on the dump streams if DUMP_KIND is enabled. */ >> >> + >> >> +void >> >> +dump_gimple_stmt (int dump_kind, int extra_dump_flags, gimple gs, int >> >> spc) >> >> +{ >> >> >> >> the gimple stuff really belongs in to gimple-pretty-print.c >> > >> > This dump_gimple_stmt () is just a dispatcher, which uses internal >> > data structure such as dump streams/flags. If I move it into >> > gimple-pretty-print.c, then I would have to export those >> > streams/flags. I was hoping to avoid it by keeping all dump_* () >> > methods together in dumpfile.c (earlier in tree-dump.c). Thus, later >> > one could just make dump_file/dump_flags static when all the passes >> > have converted to this scheme. >> > >> >> You can make the flags/streams global but only expose them via inline >> accessors in the header file. >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> (parts of tree-dump.c should be moved to a new file dumpfile.c) >> >> >> >> +/* Dump tree T using EXTRA_DUMP_FLAGS on dump streams if DUMP_KIND is >> >> + enabled. */ >> >> + >> >> +void >> >> +dump_generic_expr (int dump_kind, int extra_dump_flags, tree t) >> >> +{ >> >> >> >> belongs to tree-pretty-print.c (to where the routines are it calls) >> > >> > This is again a dispatcher for dump_generic_expr () which writes to >> > the appropriate stream depending upon dump_kind. >> > >> >> >> >> +int >> >> +dump_start (int phase, int *flag_ptr) >> >> +{ >> >> >> >> perfect candidate for dumpfile.c >> >> >> >> You can do this re-shuffling as followup, but please try to not include >> >> rtl.h >> >> or gimple-pretty-print.h from tree-dump.c. Thus re-shuffling required >> >> by that >> >> do now. tree-dump.c should only know about dumping 'tree'. >> > >> > Okay, I have moved relevant methods into dumpfile.c. >> > >> >> >> >> Index: tree-dump.h >> >> =================================================================== >> >> --- tree-dump.h (revision 191490) >> >> +++ tree-dump.h (working copy) >> >> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see >> >> #ifndef GCC_TREE_DUMP_H >> >> #define GCC_TREE_DUMP_H >> >> >> >> +#include "input.h" >> >> >> >> probably no longer required. >> >> >> >> Index: dumpfile.h >> >> =================================================================== >> >> --- dumpfile.h (revision 191490) >> >> +++ dumpfile.h (working copy) >> >> @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see >> >> #ifndef GCC_DUMPFILE_H >> >> #define GCC_DUMPFILE_H 1 >> >> >> >> +#include "coretypes.h" >> >> +#include "input.h" >> >> >> >> likewise for input.h. >> >> >> >> Index: testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c >> >> =================================================================== >> >> --- testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c (revision 191490) >> >> +++ testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c (working copy) >> >> @@ -32,5 +32,5 @@ sse2_test (void) >> >> } >> >> } >> >> >> >> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } } >> >> */ >> >> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorized loops: 1" 1 "vect" } >> >> } */ >> >> /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */ >> >> >> >> I am sure you need a gazillion more testsuite adjustments? Thus, did >> >> you >> >> really test the patch by a bootstrap and a toplevel make -k check for >> >> regressions? >> >> >> >> Index: opts.c >> >> =================================================================== >> >> --- opts.c (revision 191490) >> >> +++ opts.c (working copy) >> >> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see >> >> #include "system.h" >> >> #include "intl.h" >> >> #include "coretypes.h" >> >> +#include "dumpfile.h" >> >> >> >> I don't see that you add a use for this. Please double-check all your >> >> include >> >> file changes. >> >> >> >> Index: gimple-pretty-print.c >> >> =================================================================== >> >> --- gimple-pretty-print.c (revision 191490) >> >> +++ gimple-pretty-print.c (working copy) >> >> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ maybe_init_pretty_print (FILE *file) >> >> } >> >> ... >> >> Index: gimple-pretty-print.h >> >> =================================================================== >> >> --- gimple-pretty-print.h (revision 191490) >> >> +++ gimple-pretty-print.h (working copy) >> >> @@ -31,6 +31,6 @@ extern void debug_gimple_seq (gimple_seq); >> >> extern void print_gimple_seq (FILE *, gimple_seq, int, int); >> >> extern void print_gimple_stmt (FILE *, gimple, int, int); >> >> extern void print_gimple_expr (FILE *, gimple, int, int); >> >> -extern void dump_gimple_stmt (pretty_printer *, gimple, int, int); >> >> +extern void pp_gimple_stmt_1 (pretty_printer *, gimple, int, int); >> >> >> >> it looks like changes to these files are only renaming of existing >> >> dump_ functions >> >> to print_ functions. Consider testing and applying those separately >> >> (hereby >> >> pre-approved). >> >> >> >> Index: profile.c >> >> =================================================================== >> >> --- profile.c (revision 191490) >> >> +++ profile.c (working copy) >> >> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see >> >> >> >> please leave further changes to passes as followup, thus omit changes >> >> to this >> >> file for the initial commit and submit it separately. >> > >> > Okay. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Index: rtl.h >> >> =================================================================== >> >> --- rtl.h (revision 191490) >> >> +++ rtl.h (working copy) >> >> @@ -2482,8 +2482,8 @@ extern bool validate_subreg (enum machine_mode, >> >> en >> >> /* In combine.c */ >> >> extern unsigned int extended_count (const_rtx, enum machine_mode, >> >> int); >> >> extern rtx remove_death (unsigned int, rtx); >> >> -extern void dump_combine_stats (FILE *); >> >> -extern void dump_combine_total_stats (FILE *); >> >> +extern void debug_combine_stats (FILE *); >> >> +extern void print_combine_total_stats (FILE *); >> >> extern rtx make_compound_operation (rtx, enum rtx_code); >> >> Index: combine.c >> >> =================================================================== >> >> --- combine.c (revision 191490) >> >> +++ combine.c (working copy) >> >> ... >> >> >> >> Likewise a patch just doing this re-name is pre-approved and should be >> >> checked >> >> in separately. >> >> >> >> @@ -410,6 +419,10 @@ handle_common_deferred_options (void) >> >> stack_limit_rtx = gen_rtx_SYMBOL_REF (Pmode, ggc_strdup >> >> (opt->arg)); >> >> break; >> >> >> >> + case OPT_ftree_vectorizer_verbose_: >> >> + dump_remap_tree_vectorizer_verbose (opt->arg); >> >> + break; >> >> + >> >> >> >> can you please move that function here (opts-global.c) and make it >> >> static? >> > >> > Done. >> > >> >> >> >> Index: Makefile.in >> >> =================================================================== >> >> --- Makefile.in (revision 191490) >> >> +++ Makefile.in (working copy) >> >> >> >> remember to adjust for any changes you do above >> >> >> >> Otherwise the patch looks ok to me. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Richard. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Sharad > >
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: > Resend to gcc-patches > > I have addressed the comments by fixing all the minor issues, > bootstrapped and tested on x86_64. I did the recommended reshuffling > by moving non-tree code from tree-dump.c into a new file dumpfile.c. > > I committed two successive revisions > r191883 Main patch with the dump infrastructure changes. However, I > accidentally left out a new file, dumpfile.c. > r191884 Added dumpfile.c, and did the renaming of dump_* functions > from gimple_pretty_print.[ch]. > > As things stand right now, r191883 is broken because of the missing > file 'dumpfile.c', which the very next commit fixes. Anyone who got > broken revision r191883, please svn update. I am really very sorry > about that. > > I have a couple more minor patches which deal with renaming; I plan to > address those later. > It caused: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 0 loops" 1 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 0 loops" 1 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2 loops" 1 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/O3-pr36119.f90 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/O3-pr39595.f (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/Ofast-pr50414.f90 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/cost-model-pr34445.f (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/cost-model-pr34445a.f (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 scan-tree-dump vect "vectorized 1 loops" FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-real8-pr40801.f90 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-real8-pr40801.f90 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-8.f90 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-8.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-fre-no-copy-prop-O3-pr51704.f90 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32377.f90 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32377.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2 loops" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32457.f90 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32457.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 0 loops" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "complicated access pattern" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32377.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 2 loops" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32377.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 6 loops" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr33301.f -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr50178.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr50412.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51058-2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51058.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51285.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-1.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 3 loops" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-1.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 3 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 3 loops" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "accesses have the same alignment." 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1 FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-6.f -O (test for excess errors) on Linux/x86.
I am sorry, I didn't enable all the languages. Will fix the fortran test breakage shortly. Thanks, Sharad Sharad On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:50 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: >> Resend to gcc-patches >> >> I have addressed the comments by fixing all the minor issues, >> bootstrapped and tested on x86_64. I did the recommended reshuffling >> by moving non-tree code from tree-dump.c into a new file dumpfile.c. >> >> I committed two successive revisions >> r191883 Main patch with the dump infrastructure changes. However, I >> accidentally left out a new file, dumpfile.c. >> r191884 Added dumpfile.c, and did the renaming of dump_* functions >> from gimple_pretty_print.[ch]. >> >> As things stand right now, r191883 is broken because of the missing >> file 'dumpfile.c', which the very next commit fixes. Anyone who got >> broken revision r191883, please svn update. I am really very sorry >> about that. >> >> I have a couple more minor patches which deal with renaming; I plan to >> address those later. >> > > It caused: > > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 0 loops" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 0 loops" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 2 loops" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/O3-pr36119.f90 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/O3-pr39595.f (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/Ofast-pr50414.f90 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/cost-model-pr34445.f (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/cost-model-pr34445a.f (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 scan-tree-dump vect > "vectorized 1 loops" > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-real8-pr40801.f90 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-real8-pr40801.f90 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-8.f90 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-8.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-fre-no-copy-prop-O3-pr51704.f90 (test for > excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32377.f90 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32377.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 2 loops" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32457.f90 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32457.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 0 loops" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "complicated access pattern" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32377.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 2 loops" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32377.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 6 loops" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr33301.f -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr50178.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr50412.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51058-2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51058.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51285.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-1.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 3 loops" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-1.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 3 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 3 loops" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "accesses have the same alignment." 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect > "vectorized 1 loops" 1 > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-6.f -O (test for excess errors) > > on Linux/x86. > > -- > H.J.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: > I am sorry, I didn't enable all the languages. Will fix the fortran > test breakage shortly. It is not just Fortran. There are some failures in C testcases. > Thanks, > Sharad > Sharad > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:50 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: >>> Resend to gcc-patches >>> >>> I have addressed the comments by fixing all the minor issues, >>> bootstrapped and tested on x86_64. I did the recommended reshuffling >>> by moving non-tree code from tree-dump.c into a new file dumpfile.c. >>> >>> I committed two successive revisions >>> r191883 Main patch with the dump infrastructure changes. However, I >>> accidentally left out a new file, dumpfile.c. >>> r191884 Added dumpfile.c, and did the renaming of dump_* functions >>> from gimple_pretty_print.[ch]. >>> >>> As things stand right now, r191883 is broken because of the missing >>> file 'dumpfile.c', which the very next commit fixes. Anyone who got >>> broken revision r191883, please svn update. I am really very sorry >>> about that. >>> >>> I have a couple more minor patches which deal with renaming; I plan to >>> address those later. >>> >> >> It caused: >> >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 0 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 0 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/O3-pr36119.f90 (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/O3-pr39595.f (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/Ofast-pr50414.f90 (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/cost-model-pr34445.f (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/cost-model-pr34445a.f (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 scan-tree-dump vect >> "vectorized 1 loops" >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-real8-pr40801.f90 (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-real8-pr40801.f90 (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-8.f90 (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-8.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-fre-no-copy-prop-O3-pr51704.f90 (test for >> excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32377.f90 (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32377.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32457.f90 (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32457.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 0 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "complicated access pattern" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32377.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32377.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 6 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr33301.f -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr50178.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr50412.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51058-2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51058.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51285.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-1.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 3 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-1.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 3 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 3 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "accesses have the same alignment." 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-6.f -O (test for excess errors) >> >> on Linux/x86. >> >> -- >> H.J.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:52 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: >> I am sorry, I didn't enable all the languages. Will fix the fortran >> test breakage shortly. > > It is not just Fortran. There are some failures in C testcases. I checked and those files looked like generator files for Fortran tests and thus were not exercised in my configuration. I am really sorry about that. I am fixing it. UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c Thanks, Sharad > >> Thanks, >> Sharad >> Sharad >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:50 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: >>>> Resend to gcc-patches >>>> >>>> I have addressed the comments by fixing all the minor issues, >>>> bootstrapped and tested on x86_64. I did the recommended reshuffling >>>> by moving non-tree code from tree-dump.c into a new file dumpfile.c. >>>> >>>> I committed two successive revisions >>>> r191883 Main patch with the dump infrastructure changes. However, I >>>> accidentally left out a new file, dumpfile.c. >>>> r191884 Added dumpfile.c, and did the renaming of dump_* functions >>>> from gimple_pretty_print.[ch]. >>>> >>>> As things stand right now, r191883 is broken because of the missing >>>> file 'dumpfile.c', which the very next commit fixes. Anyone who got >>>> broken revision r191883, please svn update. I am really very sorry >>>> about that. >>>> >>>> I have a couple more minor patches which deal with renaming; I plan to >>>> address those later. >>>> >>> >>> It caused: >>> >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 0 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 0 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/O3-pr36119.f90 (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/O3-pr39595.f (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/Ofast-pr50414.f90 (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/cost-model-pr34445.f (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/cost-model-pr34445a.f (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 scan-tree-dump vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-real8-pr40801.f90 (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-real8-pr40801.f90 (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-8.f90 (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-8.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-fre-no-copy-prop-O3-pr51704.f90 (test for >>> excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32377.f90 (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32377.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32457.f90 (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32457.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 0 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "complicated access pattern" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32377.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32377.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 6 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr33301.f -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr50178.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr50412.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51058-2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51058.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51285.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-1.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 3 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-1.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 3 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 3 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "accesses have the same alignment." 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-6.f -O (test for excess errors) >>> >>> on Linux/x86. >>> >>> -- >>> H.J. > > > > -- > H.J.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:52 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: >>> I am sorry, I didn't enable all the languages. Will fix the fortran >>> test breakage shortly. >> >> It is not just Fortran. There are some failures in C testcases. > > I checked and those files looked like generator files for Fortran > tests and thus were not exercised in my configuration. I am really > sorry about that. I am fixing it. As I said, you should not enable/disable anything special but configure with all default languages enabled (no --enable-languages) and do toplevel make -k check, preferably also excercising multilibs with RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/\{,-m32\}" Richard. > UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c > UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c > UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c > UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c > UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c > UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c > UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c > UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c > UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c > > Thanks, > Sharad > >> >>> Thanks, >>> Sharad >>> Sharad >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:50 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: >>>>> Resend to gcc-patches >>>>> >>>>> I have addressed the comments by fixing all the minor issues, >>>>> bootstrapped and tested on x86_64. I did the recommended reshuffling >>>>> by moving non-tree code from tree-dump.c into a new file dumpfile.c. >>>>> >>>>> I committed two successive revisions >>>>> r191883 Main patch with the dump infrastructure changes. However, I >>>>> accidentally left out a new file, dumpfile.c. >>>>> r191884 Added dumpfile.c, and did the renaming of dump_* functions >>>>> from gimple_pretty_print.[ch]. >>>>> >>>>> As things stand right now, r191883 is broken because of the missing >>>>> file 'dumpfile.c', which the very next commit fixes. Anyone who got >>>>> broken revision r191883, please svn update. I am really very sorry >>>>> about that. >>>>> >>>>> I have a couple more minor patches which deal with renaming; I plan to >>>>> address those later. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It caused: >>>> >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 0 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 0 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/O3-pr36119.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/O3-pr39595.f (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/Ofast-pr50414.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/cost-model-pr34445.f (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/cost-model-pr34445a.f (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 scan-tree-dump vect >>>> "vectorized 1 loops" >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-real8-pr40801.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-real8-pr40801.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-8.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-8.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-fre-no-copy-prop-O3-pr51704.f90 (test for >>>> excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32377.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32377.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32457.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32457.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 0 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "complicated access pattern" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32377.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32377.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 6 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr33301.f -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr50178.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr50412.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51058-2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51058.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51285.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-1.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 3 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-1.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 3 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 3 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "accesses have the same alignment." 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-6.f -O (test for excess errors) >>>> >>>> on Linux/x86. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> H.J. >> >> >> >> -- >> H.J.
Okay, I am retesting without any special configs and with multilibs as you suggested. Thanks, Sharad On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:52 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: >>>> I am sorry, I didn't enable all the languages. Will fix the fortran >>>> test breakage shortly. >>> >>> It is not just Fortran. There are some failures in C testcases. >> >> I checked and those files looked like generator files for Fortran >> tests and thus were not exercised in my configuration. I am really >> sorry about that. I am fixing it. > > As I said, you should not enable/disable anything special but > configure with all default languages enabled (no --enable-languages) > and do toplevel make -k check, preferably also excercising > multilibs with RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/\{,-m32\}" > > Richard. > >> UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c >> UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c >> UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c >> UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c >> UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c >> UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c >> UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c >> UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c >> UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c >> >> Thanks, >> Sharad >> >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Sharad >>>> Sharad >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:50 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: >>>>>> Resend to gcc-patches >>>>>> >>>>>> I have addressed the comments by fixing all the minor issues, >>>>>> bootstrapped and tested on x86_64. I did the recommended reshuffling >>>>>> by moving non-tree code from tree-dump.c into a new file dumpfile.c. >>>>>> >>>>>> I committed two successive revisions >>>>>> r191883 Main patch with the dump infrastructure changes. However, I >>>>>> accidentally left out a new file, dumpfile.c. >>>>>> r191884 Added dumpfile.c, and did the renaming of dump_* functions >>>>>> from gimple_pretty_print.[ch]. >>>>>> >>>>>> As things stand right now, r191883 is broken because of the missing >>>>>> file 'dumpfile.c', which the very next commit fixes. Anyone who got >>>>>> broken revision r191883, please svn update. I am really very sorry >>>>>> about that. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a couple more minor patches which deal with renaming; I plan to >>>>>> address those later. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It caused: >>>>> >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 0 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 0 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-2.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-25.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-28.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-32.c scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/O3-pr36119.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/O3-pr39595.f (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/Ofast-pr50414.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/cost-model-pr34445.f (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/cost-model-pr34445a.f (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr38968.f90 scan-tree-dump vect >>>>> "vectorized 1 loops" >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-real8-pr40801.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-real8-pr40801.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-8.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-8.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-fre-no-copy-prop-O3-pr51704.f90 (test for >>>>> excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32377.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32377.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32457.f90 (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/no-vfa-pr32457.f90 scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 0 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "complicated access pattern" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr19049.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32377.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 2 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32377.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 6 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr32380.f -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr33301.f -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr50178.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr50412.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51058-2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51058.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/pr51285.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-1.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 3 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-1.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 3 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 2 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 3 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-3.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "accesses have the same alignment." 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times vect >>>>> "vectorized 1 loops" 1 >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-6.f -O (test for excess errors) >>>>> >>>>> on Linux/x86. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> H.J. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> H.J.
Your change on September 30th, breaks the powerpc port because the REPORT_DETAILS value in the enumeration is no longer there, and the rs6000_density_test function was using that. Please in the future, when you are making global changes, grep for uses of enum values in all of the machine dependent directories so we can avoid breakage like this.
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 02:02:26PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > Your change on September 30th, breaks the powerpc port because the > REPORT_DETAILS value in the enumeration is no longer there, and the > rs6000_density_test function was using that. Please in the future, when you > are making global changes, grep for uses of enum values in all of the machine > dependent directories so we can avoid breakage like this. Also, in looking at the changes, given we are already up to 28 TDF_ flags, I would recommend immediately adding a new type that is the TDF flagword type. Thus it will be a lot simpler when we add 4 more TDF flags and have to change the type from int to HOST_WIDE_INT.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Michael Meissner <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 02:02:26PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: >> Your change on September 30th, breaks the powerpc port because the >> REPORT_DETAILS value in the enumeration is no longer there, and the >> rs6000_density_test function was using that. Please in the future, when you >> are making global changes, grep for uses of enum values in all of the machine >> dependent directories so we can avoid breakage like this. > > Also, in looking at the changes, given we are already up to 28 TDF_ flags, I > would recommend immediately adding a new type that is the TDF flagword type. > Thus it will be a lot simpler when we add 4 more TDF flags and have to change > the type from int to HOST_WIDE_INT. Agreed that we need an abstraction here. -- Gaby
I have mailed a patch to fix test failures caused by r191884. Waiting for an okay. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg00109.html Thanks, Sharad Sharad On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Michael Meissner > <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 02:02:26PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: >>> Your change on September 30th, breaks the powerpc port because the >>> REPORT_DETAILS value in the enumeration is no longer there, and the >>> rs6000_density_test function was using that. Please in the future, when you >>> are making global changes, grep for uses of enum values in all of the machine >>> dependent directories so we can avoid breakage like this. >> >> Also, in looking at the changes, given we are already up to 28 TDF_ flags, I >> would recommend immediately adding a new type that is the TDF flagword type. >> Thus it will be a lot simpler when we add 4 more TDF flags and have to change >> the type from int to HOST_WIDE_INT. > > Agreed that we need an abstraction here. > -- Gaby
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Michael Meissner > <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 02:02:26PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: >>> Your change on September 30th, breaks the powerpc port because the >>> REPORT_DETAILS value in the enumeration is no longer there, and the >>> rs6000_density_test function was using that. Please in the future, when you >>> are making global changes, grep for uses of enum values in all of the machine >>> dependent directories so we can avoid breakage like this. >> >> Also, in looking at the changes, given we are already up to 28 TDF_ flags, I >> would recommend immediately adding a new type that is the TDF flagword type. >> Thus it will be a lot simpler when we add 4 more TDF flags and have to change >> the type from int to HOST_WIDE_INT. > > Agreed that we need an abstraction here. Some TLC as well - the flags have various meanings (some control dumping, some, like TDF_TREE, seem to be unrelated - the MSG ones probably don't need the same number-space as well, not all flags are used anymore - TDF_MEMSYMS?). But yes, an abstraction is needed. But I wouldn't suggest HOST_WIDE_INT but int -> uint32_t instead (possibly going uint64_t). Richard. > -- Gaby
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis > <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Michael Meissner >> <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 02:02:26PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: >>>> Your change on September 30th, breaks the powerpc port because the >>>> REPORT_DETAILS value in the enumeration is no longer there, and the >>>> rs6000_density_test function was using that. Please in the future, when you >>>> are making global changes, grep for uses of enum values in all of the machine >>>> dependent directories so we can avoid breakage like this. >>> >>> Also, in looking at the changes, given we are already up to 28 TDF_ flags, I >>> would recommend immediately adding a new type that is the TDF flagword type. >>> Thus it will be a lot simpler when we add 4 more TDF flags and have to change >>> the type from int to HOST_WIDE_INT. >> >> Agreed that we need an abstraction here. > > Some TLC as well - the flags have various meanings (some control dumping, > some, like TDF_TREE, seem to be unrelated - the MSG ones probably don't > need the same number-space as well, not all flags are used anymore - > TDF_MEMSYMS?). TDF_* flags weren't originally designed for those :-/ > > But yes, an abstraction is needed. But I wouldn't suggest HOST_WIDE_INT > but int -> uint32_t instead (possibly going uint64_t). That makes sense. -- Gaby
Index: tree-dump.c =================================================================== --- tree-dump.c (revision 191490) +++ tree-dump.c (working copy) @@ -24,9 +24,11 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see #include "coretypes.h" #include "tm.h" #include "tree.h" +#include "gimple-pretty-print.h" #include "splay-tree.h" #include "filenames.h" #include "diagnostic-core.h" +#include "rtl.h" what do you need gimple-pretty-print.h and rtl.h for? + +extern void dump_bb (FILE *, basic_block, int, int); + that should be declared in some header +/* Dump gimple statement GS with SPC indentation spaces and + EXTRA_DUMP_FLAGS on the dump streams if DUMP_KIND is enabled. */ + +void +dump_gimple_stmt (int dump_kind, int extra_dump_flags, gimple gs, int spc) +{ the gimple stuff really belongs in to gimple-pretty-print.c (parts of tree-dump.c should be moved to a new file dumpfile.c) +/* Dump tree T using EXTRA_DUMP_FLAGS on dump streams if DUMP_KIND is + enabled. */ + +void +dump_generic_expr (int dump_kind, int extra_dump_flags, tree t) +{ belongs to tree-pretty-print.c (to where the routines are it calls) +int +dump_start (int phase, int *flag_ptr) +{ perfect candidate for dumpfile.c You can do this re-shuffling as followup, but please try to not include rtl.h or gimple-pretty-print.h from tree-dump.c. Thus re-shuffling required by that do now. tree-dump.c should only know about dumping 'tree'. Index: tree-dump.h =================================================================== --- tree-dump.h (revision 191490) +++ tree-dump.h (working copy) @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see #ifndef GCC_TREE_DUMP_H #define GCC_TREE_DUMP_H +#include "input.h" probably no longer required. Index: dumpfile.h =================================================================== --- dumpfile.h (revision 191490) +++ dumpfile.h (working copy) @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see #ifndef GCC_DUMPFILE_H #define GCC_DUMPFILE_H 1 +#include "coretypes.h" +#include "input.h" likewise for input.h. Index: testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c =================================================================== --- testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c (revision 191490) +++ testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c (working copy) @@ -32,5 +32,5 @@ sse2_test (void) } } -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorized loops: 1" 1 "vect" } } */ /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */ I am sure you need a gazillion more testsuite adjustments? Thus, did you really test the patch by a bootstrap and a toplevel make -k check for regressions? Index: opts.c =================================================================== --- opts.c (revision 191490) +++ opts.c (working copy) @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see #include "system.h" #include "intl.h" #include "coretypes.h" +#include "dumpfile.h" I don't see that you add a use for this. Please double-check all your include file changes. Index: gimple-pretty-print.c =================================================================== --- gimple-pretty-print.c (revision 191490) +++ gimple-pretty-print.c (working copy) @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ maybe_init_pretty_print (FILE *file) } ... Index: gimple-pretty-print.h =================================================================== --- gimple-pretty-print.h (revision 191490) +++ gimple-pretty-print.h (working copy) @@ -31,6 +31,6 @@ extern void debug_gimple_seq (gimple_seq); extern void print_gimple_seq (FILE *, gimple_seq, int, int); extern void print_gimple_stmt (FILE *, gimple, int, int); extern void print_gimple_expr (FILE *, gimple, int, int); -extern void dump_gimple_stmt (pretty_printer *, gimple, int, int); +extern void pp_gimple_stmt_1 (pretty_printer *, gimple, int, int); it looks like changes to these files are only renaming of existing dump_ functions to print_ functions. Consider testing and applying those separately (hereby pre-approved). Index: profile.c =================================================================== --- profile.c (revision 191490) +++ profile.c (working copy) @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see please leave further changes to passes as followup, thus omit changes to this file for the initial commit and submit it separately. Index: rtl.h =================================================================== --- rtl.h (revision 191490) +++ rtl.h (working copy) @@ -2482,8 +2482,8 @@ extern bool validate_subreg (enum machine_mode, en /* In combine.c */ extern unsigned int extended_count (const_rtx, enum machine_mode, int); extern rtx remove_death (unsigned int, rtx); -extern void dump_combine_stats (FILE *); -extern void dump_combine_total_stats (FILE *); +extern void debug_combine_stats (FILE *); +extern void print_combine_total_stats (FILE *); extern rtx make_compound_operation (rtx, enum rtx_code); Index: combine.c =================================================================== --- combine.c (revision 191490)
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote: > Ping. Some minor issues: * c/c-decl.c (c_write_global_declarations): Use different method to determine if the dump has ben initialized. * cp/decl2.c (cp_write_global_declarations): Ditto. * testsuite/gcc.target/i386/vect-double-1.c: Fix test. these subdirs all have their separate ChangeLog entry from where the directory name is omitted. +++ combine.c (working copy) ... Likewise a patch just doing this re-name is pre-approved and should be checked in separately. @@ -410,6 +419,10 @@ handle_common_deferred_options (void) stack_limit_rtx = gen_rtx_SYMBOL_REF (Pmode, ggc_strdup (opt->arg)); break; + case OPT_ftree_vectorizer_verbose_: + dump_remap_tree_vectorizer_verbose (opt->arg); + break; + can you please move that function here (opts-global.c) and make it static? Index: Makefile.in =================================================================== --- Makefile.in (revision 191490) +++ Makefile.in (working copy) remember to adjust for any changes you do above Otherwise the patch looks ok to me. Thanks, Richard.