Improving mklog [was: Re: RFC Asan instrumentation control]
Hello, I have reproduced the problem with mklog mentioned by Jakub: > In my experience mklog is pretty much useless, e.g. if you add a new > function, it will list the previous function as being modified rather > than the new one, etc. My focus was on functions from headers of diff-log chunks. I hacked a simple addition to mklog which skips unchanged functions in diff-log while adding function names to the final ChangeLog. New mklog results were verified by testsuite which compares reference ChangeLogs of patches from gcc trunk with logs generated by mklog. Patched mklog considerably reduced the number of unchanged functions in ChangeLog. Is it OK for trunk? Thank you, Tatiana Udalova mklog_patch.diff Description: Binary data
[PING][PATCH]Improving mklog [was: Re: RFC Asan instrumentation control]
Ping! Thank you, Tatiana Udalova -- Hello, I have reproduced the problem with mklog mentioned by Jakub: > In my experience mklog is pretty much useless, e.g. if you add a new > function, it will list the previous function as being modified rather > than the new one, etc. My focus was on functions from headers of diff-log chunks. I hacked a simple addition to mklog which skips unchanged functions in diff-log while adding function names to the final ChangeLog. New mklog results were verified by testsuite which compares reference ChangeLogs of patches from gcc trunk with logs generated by mklog. Patched mklog considerably reduced the number of unchanged functions in ChangeLog. Is it OK for trunk? Thank you, Tatiana Udalova mklog_patch.diff Description: Binary data
RE: [PING][PATCH]Improving mklog [was: Re: RFC Asan instrumentation control]
> Apologies for the delay. The patch is OK. Thanks. Committed revision 206875. Thank you, Tatiana Udalova
