Hi Indu!
I recently saw that you just started contributing to GCC, so: welcome,
and enjoy to journey!
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:54:09 -0800, Indu Bhagat wrote:
> On 12/06/2018 05:54 PM, Indu Bhagat wrote:
> > [...]
Thanks for looking into this issue again. As I said in private email,
such things
On 12/06/2018 05:54 PM, Indu Bhagat wrote:
2. I do however see other tests (a total of 23) which are have
regressed from
PASS --> UNRESOLVED. A diff is attached.
Each one of them is due to "Error/Warning threshold exceeded: 1 0
(max. 1 3)"
False alarm.
Looks like there is some
On 12/05/2018 03:33 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
Sorry for my late follow-up; had a lot of catch up to do back then.
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:47:31 +0200, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM Indu Bhagat wrote:
Done. Attached is updated patch.
Patch is tested on x86_64
Hi!
Sorry for my late follow-up; had a lot of catch up to do back then.
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:47:31 +0200, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM Indu Bhagat wrote:
> >
> > Done. Attached is updated patch.
> >
> > Patch is tested on x86_64
>
> You obviously did _not_
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:10 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 9/27/18 12:14 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > On 9/27/18 11:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM Indu Bhagat wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Done. Attached is updated patch.
> >>>
> >>> Patch is tested on x86_64
> >>
> >> You
On 9/27/18 12:14 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 9/27/18 11:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM Indu Bhagat wrote:
>>>
>>> Done. Attached is updated patch.
>>>
>>> Patch is tested on x86_64
>>
>> You obviously did _not_ properly test the patch since it causes a
>> bunch
On 9/27/18 11:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM Indu Bhagat wrote:
>>
>> Done. Attached is updated patch.
>>
>> Patch is tested on x86_64
>
> You obviously did _not_ properly test the patch since it causes a
> bunch of new testsuite
> failures:
>
> FAIL:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM Indu Bhagat wrote:
>
> Done. Attached is updated patch.
>
> Patch is tested on x86_64
You obviously did _not_ properly test the patch since it causes a
bunch of new testsuite
failures:
FAIL: g++.dg/pr60518.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors)
FAIL:
On 9/24/18 9:21 PM, Indu Bhagat wrote:
> Done. Attached is updated patch.
Thanks for it, I tested that right now.
You have ACK, so please install the patch. Please do not forget
to install ChangeLog entry and I would include PR entry:
https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/contribute.html
example can
Done. Attached is updated patch.
Patch is tested on x86_64
Thanks
On 09/24/2018 09:37 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I would suggest to use the term "remove" or "delete" instead of
the informal "wipe out" when referring to removing files or their
contents.
Martin
diff --git a/gcc/common.opt
On 09/21/2018 05:27 PM, Indu Bhagat wrote:
Attached is the refreshed patch for trunk.
After commit 264462 (Remove arc profile histogram in non-LTO mode.), the
API
of get_coverage_counts was changed a bit. So the main difference between
the
current version of my patch from the previous one is
Attached is the refreshed patch for trunk.
After commit 264462 (Remove arc profile histogram in non-LTO mode.), the API
of get_coverage_counts was changed a bit. So the main difference between the
current version of my patch from the previous one is that :
Now I use
+ if (counter ==
On 09/17/2018 03:52 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
On 09/11/2018 02:21 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
--- a/gcc/common.opt
+++ b/gcc/common.opt
@@ -811,6 +811,10 @@ Wcoverage-mismatch
Common Var(warn_coverage_mismatch) Init(1) Warning
Warn in case profiles in -fprofile-use do not match.
> On 9/16/18 12:58 AM, Indu Bhagat wrote:
> > Thanks for the reviews. I have incorporated them in this patch except the
> > one
> > (changes in common.opt) below.
> >
> > In this patch,
> >
> > 1. -Wmissing-profile is a warning by default and is ON by default with
> >-fprofile-use
> > 2.
On 9/16/18 12:58 AM, Indu Bhagat wrote:
> Thanks for the reviews. I have incorporated them in this patch except the one
> (changes in common.opt) below.
>
> In this patch,
>
> 1. -Wmissing-profile is a warning by default and is ON by default with
>-fprofile-use
> 2. Attached
Thanks for the reviews. I have incorporated all but one (See below; its the
change in the warning's
brief summary in common.opt) in the patch.
In this patch,
1. -Wmissing-profile is a warning by default and is ON by default with
-fprofile-use
2. Attached pr86957-missing-profile-diagnostic-2
On 09/05/2018 09:28 PM, Indu Bhagat wrote:
> Patch for PR 86957 " gcc should warn about missing profiles for a compilation
> unit or a new function with -fprofile-use".
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86957
>
> The patch adds -Wmissing-profile warning flag to alert user about
On 09/05/2018 09:28 PM, Indu Bhagat wrote:
Hi.
Thanks for working on that. I believe it's useful enhancement. Note that I'm
not profile feedback maintainer,
but I'll provide some feedback:
> Patch for PR 86957 " gcc should warn about missing profiles for a compilation
> unit or a new function
18 matches
Mail list logo
