Re: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-11-11 Thread Nathan Sidwell
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

Re: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-11-11 Thread Martin Liška
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

Re: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-11-10 Thread Nathan Sidwell
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

Re: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-11-10 Thread Martin Liška
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

Re: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-11-10 Thread Nathan Sidwell
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

Re: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-11-10 Thread David Edelsohn
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

Re: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-11-10 Thread David Edelsohn
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

Re: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-11-10 Thread Nathan Sidwell
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

Re: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-11-10 Thread Martin Liška
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

Re: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-11-10 Thread David Edelsohn
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

Re: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-11-10 Thread Nathan Sidwell
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

Re: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-11-10 Thread Martin Liška
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 >>

Re: [PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-10-31 Thread Martin Liška
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

[PATCH] Introduce -fprofile-update=maybe-atomic

2016-10-13 Thread Martin Liška
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. *