On 16.12.22 13:09, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 11:39 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
On 16.12.22 10:47, Richard Biener wrote:
No, if you select -fprofile-update=atomic, then the updates shall be
atomic from my point of view. If a fallback is acceptable, then you can
use
On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 11:39 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> On 16.12.22 10:47, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> No, if you select -fprofile-update=atomic, then the updates shall be
> >> atomic from my point of view. If a fallback is acceptable, then you can
> >> use -fprofile-update=prefer-atomic.
On 16.12.22 10:47, Richard Biener wrote:
No, if you select -fprofile-update=atomic, then the updates shall be
atomic from my point of view. If a fallback is acceptable, then you can
use -fprofile-update=prefer-atomic. Using the fallback in
-fprofile-update=atomic is a bug which prevents the use
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 9:34 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> On 13/12/2022 15:30, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 2:56 PM Sebastian Huber
> > wrote:
> >> The code coverage support uses counters to determine which edges in the
> >> control
> >> flow graph were executed. If a
On 13/12/2022 15:30, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 2:56 PM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
The code coverage support uses counters to determine which edges in the control
flow graph were executed. If a counter overflows, then the code coverage
information is invalid. Therefore the
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 2:56 PM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> The code coverage support uses counters to determine which edges in the
> control
> flow graph were executed. If a counter overflows, then the code coverage
> information is invalid. Therefore the counter type should be a 64-bit
>
