On 08/06/16 06:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Fixed thusly, committed as obvious to trunk:
2016-08-06 Jakub Jelinek
* gcov.c (handle_cycle): Use INTTYPE_MAXIMUM (int64_t) instead of
INT64_MAX.
thanks Jakub!
nathan
On 08/06/2016 12:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 08:27:39AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 08/05/2016 09:30 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
Sorry for the mistake with the enum, that was silly ;)
New patch version also handl
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 08:27:39AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > On 08/05/2016 09:30 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> Sorry for the mistake with the enum, that was silly ;)
> >> New patch version also handles the unnecessary braces
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 08:27:39AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > On 08/05/2016 09:30 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> Sorry for the mistake with the enum, that was silly ;)
> >> New patch version also handles the unnecessary braces
On Fri, 5 Aug 2016, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> I attached a wrong patch, sending the new one.
> This broke cross aarch64-elf-gnu building.
It also broke native i586-unknown-freebsd10.3 (which features
clang as the system compiler).
/scratch/tmp/gerald/gcc-HEAD/gcc/gcov.c:468:25: error: use of undec
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/05/2016 09:30 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Sorry for the mistake with the enum, that was silly ;)
>> New patch version also handles the unnecessary braces.
>>
>> Martin
>
> I attached a wrong patch, sending the new one.
This br
On 08/05/16 03:32, Martin Liška wrote:
On 08/05/2016 09:30 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
Sorry for the mistake with the enum, that was silly ;)
New patch version also handles the unnecessary braces.
Martin
I attached a wrong patch, sending the new one.
This one looks good, thanks!
nathan
a0d6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 12:34:08 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] gcov tool: Implement Hawick's algorithm for cycle detection,
(PR gcov-profile/67992)
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-08-04 Martin Liska
Joshua Cranmer
* gcov.c (line_t::has_block): New functi
rry for the mistake with the enum, that was silly ;)
New patch version also handles the unnecessary braces.
Martin
>From 8aec25a71d303c4411f0c2ef307b1a20e71483a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 12:34:08 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] gcov tool: Implement Hawick's algori
On 08/04/16 12:10, Martin Liška wrote:
On 08/04/2016 05:13 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 08/04/16 10:42, Martin Liška wrote:
I decided to use a new enum, hope it's better?
that's fine. But you know, if you set the enum values appropriately you could
use the | trick rather than the compare y
gated. Is this change intentional?
That's not intentional, fixed in the new version.
May I install the patch?
Martin
>
> nathan
>From 4517ea775ff041c8f37faff76b637fd671f269e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 12:34:08 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] gcov tool: Imple
On 08/04/16 10:42, Martin Liška wrote:
I decided to use a new enum, hope it's better?
that's fine. But you know, if you set the enum values appropriately you could
use the | trick rather than the compare you've done (c++ enum type safety would
require an overloaded | operator though). I do
w == start)
> found |= handle_cycle (path, count);
> else if (...)
> found |= circuit (...)
> will DTRT there
>
> 3) finally have find_cycles merge the results from its circuit calls and
> determine whether to repeat itself -- rather than have the caller do it. (o
> On 08/04/16 06:41, Martin Liška wrote:
> >On 08/03/2016 04:22 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >>Martin,
> >>>As I've going through all PRs related to gcov-profile, I've noticed this
> >>>PR.
> >>>Current implementation of cycle detection in gcov is very poor, leading to
> >>>extreme run time
> >>>f
On 08/04/16 06:41, Martin Liška wrote:
On 08/03/2016 04:22 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Martin,
As I've going through all PRs related to gcov-profile, I've noticed this PR.
Current implementation of cycle detection in gcov is very poor, leading to
extreme run time
for cases like mentioned in the
On 08/03/2016 04:22 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Martin,
>> As I've going through all PRs related to gcov-profile, I've noticed this PR.
>> Current implementation of cycle detection in gcov is very poor, leading to
>> extreme run time
>> for cases like mentioned in the PR (which does not contain a
Martin,
As I've going through all PRs related to gcov-profile, I've noticed this PR.
Current implementation of cycle detection in gcov is very poor, leading to
extreme run time
for cases like mentioned in the PR (which does not contain a cycle). Thank to
Joshua, I've
grabbed his patch and remov
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> As I've going through all PRs related to gcov-profile, I've noticed this PR.
> Current implementation of cycle detection in gcov is very poor, leading to
> extreme run time
> for cases like mentioned in the PR (which does not contai
72edc6d76424f6022d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:56:45 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] gcov tool: Implement Hawick's algorithm for cycle detection
(PR gcov-profile/67992)
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-08-03 Martin Liska
Joshua Cranmer
PR gcov-profile/6
19 matches
Mail list logo
