https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120462

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---


The current document:
```
The categories of checks available in @var{list} are @samp{yes} (most common
checks @samp{assert,misc,gc,gimple,rtlflag,runtime,tree,types}), @samp{no}
(no checks at all), @samp{all} (all but @samp{valgrind}), @samp{release}
(cheapest checks @samp{assert,runtime}) or @samp{none} (same as @samp{no}).
@samp{release} checks are always on and to disable them
@samp{--disable-checking} or @samp{--enable-checking=no[,<other checks>]}
must be explicitly requested.  Disabling assertions makes the compiler and
runtime slightly faster but increases the risk of undetected internal errors
causing wrong code to be generated.

Individual checks can be enabled with these flags: @samp{assert}, @samp{df},
@samp{extra}, @samp{fold}, @samp{gc}, @samp{gcac}, @samp{gimple},
@samp{misc}, @samp{rtl}, @samp{rtlflag}, @samp{runtime}, @samp{tree},
@samp{types} and @samp{valgrind}.  @samp{extra} extends @samp{misc}
checking with extra checks that might affect code generation and should
therefore not differ between stage1 and later stages in bootstrap.
```

The patch is wrong, fold checking is not enabled by yes:
        yes)            ac_assert_checking=1 ; ac_checking=1 ; ac_df_checking=
;
                        ac_fold_checking= ; ac_gc_checking=1 ;
ac_extra_checking= ;
                        ac_gc_always_collect= ; ac_gimple_checking=1 ;
ac_rtl_checking= ;
                        ac_rtlflag_checking=1 ; ac_runtime_checking=1 ;
                        ac_tree_checking=1 ; ac_valgrind_checking= ;
                        ac_types_checking=1 ;;


see how ac_fold_checking is set to an empty string for yes.

Reply via email to