On 11/11/2016 02:47 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
We use lists like for -fsanitize=address,undefined, however as -fprofile-update
has only 3 (and passing 'single,atomic' does not make sense), I would prefer
to s/maybe-atomic/prefer-atomic. I guess handling the option list in gcc.c and
doing
On 11/10/2016 06:31 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 08:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 11/10/2016 05:17 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>> Maybe instead of adding "maybe", we need to change the severity of the
>>> warning so that the warning is not emitted by default.
>>
>> Adding the
On 11/10/2016 08:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 11/10/2016 05:17 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Maybe instead of adding "maybe", we need to change the severity of the
warning so that the warning is not emitted by default.
Adding the warning option to -Wextra can be solution. Is it acceptable
On 11/10/2016 05:17 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Maybe instead of adding "maybe", we need to change the severity of the
> warning so that the warning is not emitted by default.
Adding the warning option to -Wextra can be solution. Is it acceptable
approach?
Martin
On 11/10/2016 07:55 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
gcc.c now imposes profile-update=atomic if -pthread is used, even if
the target does not support profile-update=atomic.
ah, that's where this is coming from.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 04:43 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> On 11/10/2016 05:19 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
On 10/13/2016 05:34 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> As it's very hard to guess from GCC driver whether a
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 07:43 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>
>> On 11/10/2016 05:19 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
On 10/13/2016 05:34 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> As it's very hard to guess from GCC driver
On 11/10/2016 07:43 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 11/10/2016 05:19 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/13/2016 05:34 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
As it's very hard to guess from GCC driver whether a target supports
atomic updates
for GCOV counter or not, I decided to come up with a new option
On 11/10/2016 04:43 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 05:19 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>>> On 10/13/2016 05:34 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
As it's very hard to guess from GCC driver whether a target supports
atomic updates
for GCOV counter or not, I decided to
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 05:19 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>>> On 10/13/2016 05:34 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
As it's very hard to guess from GCC driver whether a target supports
atomic updates
for GCOV
On 11/10/2016 05:19 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/13/2016 05:34 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
As it's very hard to guess from GCC driver whether a target supports atomic
updates
for GCOV counter or not, I decided to come up with a new option value
(maybe-atomic),
that would be transformed
PING^2
On 10/31/2016 10:13 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> PING^1
>
> On 10/13/2016 05:34 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> As it's very hard to guess from GCC driver whether a target supports atomic
>> updates
>> for GCOV counter or not, I decided to come up with a new option value
>>
PING^1
On 10/13/2016 05:34 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> As it's very hard to guess from GCC driver whether a target supports atomic
> updates
> for GCOV counter or not, I decided to come up with a new option value
> (maybe-atomic),
> that would be transformed in a corresponding value
xin <mli...@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:05:49 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-10-12 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
* common.opt: Add maybe-atomic as a new enum value for
-fprofile-update.
* coretypes.h: Likewise.
*
14 matches
Mail list logo