Re: [PATCH] Fix profile_quality sanity check.

2018-01-19 Thread Tom de Vries
On 01/19/2018 04:08 PM, Martin Liška wrote: On 01/19/2018 02:21 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: How about keeping profile_uninitialized at the zero value location and asserting m_quality != profile_uninitialized ? Thanks, - Tom Yes, that would be possible. Can you please test that the patch does no

Re: [PATCH] Fix profile_quality sanity check.

2018-01-19 Thread Martin Liška
On 01/19/2018 02:21 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: > How about keeping profile_uninitialized at the zero value location and > asserting m_quality != profile_uninitialized ? > > Thanks, > - Tom Yes, that would be possible. Can you please test that the patch does not generate warnings? I'm running regr

Re: [PATCH] Fix profile_quality sanity check.

2018-01-19 Thread Tom de Vries
On 01/19/2018 01:11 PM, Martin Liška wrote: On 01/18/2018 04:57 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: On 01/18/2018 03:59 PM, Martin Liška wrote: Hi. Following patch adds a new enum value so that we don't see following warning: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01211.html Hi, with the patch,

Re: [PATCH] Fix profile_quality sanity check.

2018-01-19 Thread Martin Liška
On 01/18/2018 04:57 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 01/18/2018 03:59 PM, Martin Liška wrote: >> Hi. >> >> Following patch adds a new enum value so that we don't see following warning: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01211.html >> > > Hi, > > with the patch, I still see the same warn

Re: [PATCH] Fix profile_quality sanity check.

2018-01-18 Thread Tom de Vries
On 01/18/2018 03:59 PM, Martin Liška wrote: Hi. Following patch adds a new enum value so that we don't see following warning: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01211.html Hi, with the patch, I still see the same warning. And not surprisingly, given that profile_precise is still