https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283 > > --- Comment #14 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > > > more complex "ranges" for debug counters appreciated, > > +1 > > > -fdbg-cnt=foo:{5-6,9,1-10} or some sorts of that (lists of ranges / values). > > I'm definitely missing a all-but-N as well. ~6 and ~6-9 maybe. Guess > > {} don't work very well due to shell limitations so maybe > > simply foo:5-6:9:1-10,bar:... with changing semantics of previous handling. > > Note that the debug counter is mainly for us as developers, so I would not > care much about backward compatibility. > > > Implementation-wise we'd have instead of high/low arrays > > an array of pair<counter, vec<pair<high, low> > which we only look at > > the last element of the vec (sort it backwards), popping it whenever > > we reach it's max and checking against the current min. or some > > other data structure mimicing this, that is, dbg_cnt () is still O(1) > > just parsing the option might involve sorting. > > Yes, one simple improvement can be: > foo:5-6:9:10-100:1000 where we can enforce that ranges are in increasing > order and not overlapping. Or we can sort the ranges and then dbg_cnt will > be O(1) with the popping technique. This simple improved format works for me. For users sake I'd simply sort the thing since we're going to need to reverse it anyways. Then -fdbg-cnt=foo:5 -fdbg-cnt=foo:1-3 would also be inclusive, effectively setting 1-3:5?
