On Mon, 11 Dec 2023, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 7:38 AM
> > To: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com>
> > Cc: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd
> > <n...@arm.com>; j...@ventanamicro.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/21]middle-end: [RFC] conditionally support forcing
> > final
> > edge for debugging
> >
> > On Sat, 9 Dec 2023, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> > > Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> writes:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > What do people think about having the ability to force only the latch
> > > > connected
> > > > exit as the exit as a param? I.e. what's in the patch but as a param.
> > > >
> > > > I found this useful when debugging large example failures as it tells
> > > > me where
> > > > I should be looking. No hard requirement but just figured I'd ask if
> > > > we should.
> > >
> > > If it's useful for that, then perhaps it would be worth making it a
> > > DEBUG_COUNTER instead of a --param, for easy bisection.
> >
> > Or even better, make a debug counter that would skip the IV edge and
> > choose the "next".
> >
>
> Ah, I'd never heard of debug counters. They look very useful!
>
> Did you mean everytime the counter is reached it picks the n-th successor?
>
> So If the counter is hit twice it picks the 3rd exit?
if (!dbg_cnt (...))
do not take this exit, try next
which means it might even fail to find an exit.
> Thanks,
> Tamar
>
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH,
Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany;
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
