Re: RFC (V2) the proposal to resolve the missing dependency issue for counted_by attribute

2023-11-09 Thread Qing Zhao
> On Nov 9, 2023, at 11:50 AM, Jose Marchesi wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 03:49:49PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: >>> Is it reasonable to add one option to disable the “counted_by” attribute? >>> (then no insertion of the new .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE into IL). >>> >>> The major reason is:

Re: RFC (V2) the proposal to resolve the missing dependency issue for counted_by attribute

2023-11-09 Thread Jose E. Marchesi
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 03:49:49PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: >> Is it reasonable to add one option to disable the “counted_by” attribute? >> (then no insertion of the new .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE into IL). >> >> The major reason is: some users might want to ignore all the “counted_by” >> attribute

Re: RFC (V2) the proposal to resolve the missing dependency issue for counted_by attribute

2023-11-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 03:49:49PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: > Is it reasonable to add one option to disable the “counted_by” attribute? > (then no insertion of the new .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE into IL). > > The major reason is: some users might want to ignore all the “counted_by” > attribute added in

Re: RFC (V2) the proposal to resolve the missing dependency issue for counted_by attribute

2023-11-09 Thread Qing Zhao
Is it reasonable to add one option to disable the “counted_by” attribute? (then no insertion of the new .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE into IL). The major reason is: some users might want to ignore all the “counted_by” attribute added in the source code, We need to provide them a way to disable this

RFC (V2) the proposal to resolve the missing dependency issue for counted_by attribute

2023-11-06 Thread Qing Zhao
Hi, Attached is the 2nd version of the proposal based on all the discussion so far. Let me know if you have more comment and suggestion. Thanks a lot for all the help. Qing === Represent the missing dependence for the "counted_by" attribute and its