Re: [PATCH 0/2] Condition coverage fixes

Jørgen Kvalsvik writes: > Hi, > > I propose these fixes for the current issues with the condition > coverage. > > Rainer, I propose to simply delete the test with __sigsetjmp. I don't > think it actually detects anything reasonable any more, I kept it around > to prevent a regression. Since then

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Condition coverage fixes

On 07/04/2024 08:26, Richard Biener wrote: Am 06.04.2024 um 22:41 schrieb Jørgen Kvalsvik : On 06/04/2024 13:15, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote: On 06/04/2024 07:50, Richard Biener wrote: Am 05.04.2024 um 21:59 schrieb Jørgen Kvalsvik : Hi, I propose these fixes for the current issues with the

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Condition coverage fixes

> Am 06.04.2024 um 22:41 schrieb Jørgen Kvalsvik : > > On 06/04/2024 13:15, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote: >>> On 06/04/2024 07:50, Richard Biener wrote: >>> >>> Am 05.04.2024 um 21:59 schrieb Jørgen Kvalsvik : Hi, I propose these fixes for the current issues with the con

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Condition coverage fixes

On 06/04/2024 13:15, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote: On 06/04/2024 07:50, Richard Biener wrote: Am 05.04.2024 um 21:59 schrieb Jørgen Kvalsvik : Hi, I propose these fixes for the current issues with the condition coverage. Rainer, I propose to simply delete the test with __sigsetjmp. I don't think

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Condition coverage fixes

On 06/04/2024 07:50, Richard Biener wrote: Am 05.04.2024 um 21:59 schrieb Jørgen Kvalsvik : Hi, I propose these fixes for the current issues with the condition coverage. Rainer, I propose to simply delete the test with __sigsetjmp. I don't think it actually detects anything reasonable any

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Condition coverage fixes

> Am 05.04.2024 um 21:59 schrieb Jørgen Kvalsvik : > > Hi, > > I propose these fixes for the current issues with the condition > coverage. > > Rainer, I propose to simply delete the test with __sigsetjmp. I don't > think it actually detects anything reasonable any more, I kept it around > to