On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 3:54 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
> On 05/16/2018 03:39 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 May 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>> Hm, is the off-by-one in the new explanatory text really intended? I
think
> >>> the previous text was accurate, and the new text should say "9th and
10th"
> >>> and then "first 10 invocations", unless I'm missing something?
> >>
> >> I've reconsidered that once more time and having zero-based values:
> >> * -fdbg-cnt=event:N - trigger event N-times
> >> * -fdbg-cnt=event:N:(N+M) - skip even N-times and then enable it M-1
times
> >>
> >> Does that make sense?
> >
> > Yes, I like this, but I think the implementation does not match. New
docs say:
> >
> >> -For example, with @option{-fdbg-cnt=dce:10,tail_call:0},
> >> -@code{dbg_cnt(dce)} returns true only for first 10 invocations.
> >> +For example, with @option{-fdbg-cnt=dce:2:4,tail_call:10},
> >> +@code{dbg_cnt(dce)} returns true only for third and fourth invocation.
> >> +For @code{dbg_cnt(tail_call)} true is returned for first 10
invocations.
> >
> > which is good, but the implementation reads:
> >
> >> bool
> >> dbg_cnt_is_enabled (enum debug_counter index)
> >> {
> >> - return count[index] <= limit[index];
> >> + unsigned v = count[index];
> >> + return v >= limit_low[index] && v < limit_high[index];
> >> }
> >
> > which I believe is misaligned with the docs' intention. It should be the
> > other way around:
> >
> > return v > limit_low[index] && v <= limit_high[index];
> Note that I changed count[index]++ to happen after dbg_cnt_is_enabled.
I'm reverting that
> and now it works fine with your condition.
OK.
Richard.
> Martin
> >
> > Alexander
> >
