On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
Well, you seem to keep not reading what I write. I
I am hoping that too:) Yes, I will try to do it when I find some time.
David
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Richard Guenther
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Well, you seem to keep not reading what I write. I am not opposed
to adding -fopt-info/report nor to funnel messages to stdout/err. What
I am opposed is the way you want to introduce them. I want you to
fix what we
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
There are two proposals here. One is -fopt-info which
Well, you seem to keep not reading what I write. I am not opposed
to adding -fopt-info/report nor to funnel messages to stdout/err. What
I am opposed is the way you want to introduce them. I want you to
fix what we dump into dump files, so that both -fopt-report and -fopt-info
can be
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
There are two proposals here. One is -fopt-info which prints out
informational notes to stderr, and the other is -fopt-report which is
more elaborate form of dump files. Are you object to both or just the
opt-report
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
There are two proposals here. One is -fopt-info which prints out
informational notes to stderr, and the other is -fopt-report which is
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
x...@google.com (Rong Xu) writes:
After some off-line
There are two proposals here. One is -fopt-info which prints out
informational notes to stderr, and the other is -fopt-report which is
more elaborate form of dump files. Are you object to both or just the
opt-report one? The former is no different from any other
informational notes we already
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
x...@google.com (Rong Xu) writes:
After some off-line discussion, we decided to use a more general approach
to control the printing of optimization messages/warnings. We will
introduce a new option -fopt-info:
*
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
x...@google.com (Rong Xu) writes:
After some off-line discussion, we decided to use a more general approach
to control the printing of
Richard, Thanks for the comments.
Let me give some background of the patch: The initial intention of the
patch is to suppress
the verbose warnings and notes emitted in profile-use compilation.
This warnings/notes are caused
by inconsistent profile due to data race (which is currently common in
While discussion for trunk version is still going, it is ok for google branches.
thanks,
David
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Rong Xu x...@google.com wrote:
After some off-line discussion, we decided to use a more general approach
to control the printing of optimization messages/warnings.
This warnings/notes are caused
by inconsistent profile due to data race (which is currently common in
multi-thread programs),
I never quite understood why the gcov counters are not simply marked
__thread. This would make the profiled programs faster too because
they wouldn't bounce cache lines
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
This warnings/notes are caused
by inconsistent profile due to data race (which is currently common in
multi-thread programs),
I never quite understood why the gcov counters are not simply marked
__thread. This would make
After some off-line discussion, we decided to use a more general approach
to control the printing of optimization messages/warnings. We will
introduce a new option -fopt-info:
* fopt-info=0 or fno-opt-info: no message will be emitted.
* fopt-info or fopt-info=1: emit important warnings and
x...@google.com (Rong Xu) writes:
After some off-line discussion, we decided to use a more general approach
to control the printing of optimization messages/warnings. We will
introduce a new option -fopt-info:
* fopt-info=0 or fno-opt-info: no message will be emitted.
* fopt-info or
17 matches
Mail list logo
