On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > It seems that majority of testcases are independent of lipo. We could >> > probably >> > enjoy more of testing on mainline, so could you please take those working >> > on >> > mainline and make mainline patch and let me know what of the tests are not >> > working >> > there? >> >> Actually those test cases are cloned from tree-prof directory into the >> lipo sub-directory. The difference is that lipo.exp file passes >> additional -fripa flag. The missing tests for LIPO are ones with >> multiple source with non trivial module group testing -- I have not >> added those yet. > > Hmm, the tests looked familiar so I wondered how redundant they are ;) > Well, any tests that you do have for PDO and are not in mainlie are welcome. >> >> > >> > We probably ought to fix the pass name... We already have "ipa-profile" >> > for profile >> > propagation. What about "gcov", unless we could come with something >> > better? >> >> Yes -- tree_profile_ipa and ipa_profile confuses many people. > > If we won't get better idea, I would go with gcov.
Maybe it is better to change ipa-profile to something like ipa_freq_prop. Gcov is the name for coverage --- though it is related to profiling and FDO, and it can so be confusing. David > > Honza >