[Bug analyzer/93692] Possible typo: supergraph vs. callgraph

2020-02-18 Thread dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93692 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/93692] Possible typo: supergraph vs. callgraph

2020-02-18 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93692 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0b2b45a68f48817e2310b12db3e03e648d4d2005 commit r10-6697-g0b2b45a68f48817e2310b12db3e03e648d4d2005 Author: David Malcolm Date: Tu

[Bug analyzer/93692] Possible typo: supergraph vs. callgraph

2020-02-14 Thread dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93692 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- Good catch, thanks. Yes, this was a copy-and-paste issue. How about this for the analyzer.opt description: Dump analyzer-specific call graph information to a SRCFILE.callgraph.dot file. FWIW, invoke.tex

[Bug analyzer/93692] Possible typo: supergraph vs. callgraph

2020-02-11 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93692 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- The documentation does describe more what super means :).

[Bug analyzer/93692] Possible typo: supergraph vs. callgraph

2020-02-11 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93692 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Note there is a -fdump-analyzer-supergraph so it looks like there is a copy and paste issue.

[Bug analyzer/93692] Possible typo: supergraph vs. callgraph

2020-02-11 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93692 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||documentation Status|UNCONFI