On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > Thus I propose to separate the two. To avoid introducing another > --enable-checking option, let's move the annotations to the "misc" > checking and also enable "misc" too if "valgrind" is requested. Both > these options are disabled for releases, so no performance loss there. > > There are two drawbacks I can think of. First, if one wants Valgrind > annotations but does not have the required headers, then the compiler > will be built without them - silently (currently > --enable-checking=valgrind fails if headers are not found). Second, > the compiler binary will be built slightly different if "misc" is > enabled depending on the presence or absence of those headers. I > believe these are minor enough. > > I have a prototype patch which I've been using on gc-improv (not > committed there yet). > > What do you think?
Sounds good to me (the original author of the --enable-checking=valgrind FWIW). I have no problems with your suggested changes, except I insist --enable-checking=valgrind still behave the same: actually running valgrind on all gcc invocations, adding annotations and failing if it doesn't find the headers. ;) If people want your "misc" changes but failing without headers, add "--enable-valgrind-annotations". Unfortunately, last I checked, the valgrind of Fedora 12 (or was it 10?) was compiled with too low limits to cope with bootstrapping and compiling the most troublesome insn-*.c file. brgds, H-P
