Support for machine function cfg dot dump

[Chandler Carruth]

Missing patch?


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com>wrote:

> (this patch has been sitting in my computer collecting dust for a
> couple of months now, send it out before I forget about it).
>
>
> Currently only 'opt' driver supports CFG dump. The existing command line
> is :
>
> opt -<pass_arg> -dot-cfg ....
>
> The pass scheduler will inject the dot-cfg pass after <pass_arg> pass.
>
> However, this is not supported for neither 'clang' nor 'llc' driver.
>
> In fact, there is *no* support for Machine CFG dump at all.
>
> The following patch added the support to dump .dot CFG file for each
> function before/after each pass -- just like IR dump.
>
> The syntax is :
>
>     <driver> -dot-cfg-after=<pass-arg> ...
>     <driver> -dot-cfg-before=<pass-arg> ...
>
> The cfg printer is also enhanced to allow the pass name and order
> string to be included in the name.
>
> For instance,
>
>      opt -dot-cfg-after=gvn t.b ...  # t.b defines 'foo'
>
> It will create file cfg.foo.after.gvn.dot
>
> The new option is now unified across three drivers:
>
>     opt -O2 -dot-cfg-after=gvn t.bc -o to.bc
>     llc  -dot-cfg-before=machine-cp t.bc -o t.o
>     clang -mllvm -dot-cfg-before=...   [1]
>
>
> Brief descriptions of the changes:
>
> 1) The CFGPrinter code is templatized and refactored -- the main
> implementation is moved into CFGPrinterBase<..>
> 2) CFG and CFGOnly dumps are now unified into the same template class
> 3) For Function class, CFGPrinterT used -- which is derived from
> CFGPrinterBase
> 4) For MachineFunction, MachineCFGPrinterT is derived from CFGPrinterBase
> 5) To avoid creating dependency backwards from core to analysis, the
> cfgprinter is moved to Support, sitting in core.
>
>
> [1]. This currently does not work because Clang driver has a bug that
> it does not register driver scheduled pass names properly.  THis also
> blocks option -print-before|after from working with clang driver.  I
> have another patch for it.
>
>
> LLVM builds fine and regression test is ok.
>
> If the patch looks ok and useful, can someone help check this in?
>
> thanks,
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130612/61659b91/attachment.html>