Hi Martin,
> 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.
I'm seeing a testsuite regression for
+FAIL: gcc.dg/pr68766.c (test for excess errors)
on 32 and 64-bit Solaris/x86, Linux/x86_64, also seen on i686-pc-linux-gnu,
powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu.
Excess errors:
dbg_cnt 'vect_loop' set to 0-1
Either the adjustment to gcc.dg/pr68766.c is wrong or not generic.
Please fix.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
