I am hoping that too:) Yes, I will try to do it when I find some time.
David
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>> >> Well, you seem to keep not reading what I write. I am not opposed
>> >> to adding -fopt-info/report
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Well, you seem to keep not reading what I write. I am not opposed
>> to adding -fopt-info/report nor to funnel messages to stdout/err. What
>> I am opposed is the way you want to introduce them. I want you to
>> fix what we dump into
> Well, you seem to keep not reading what I write. I am not opposed
> to adding -fopt-info/report nor to funnel messages to stdout/err. What
> I am opposed is the way you want to introduce them. I want you to
> fix what we dump into dump files, so that both -fopt-report and -fopt-info
> can be i
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> There are two proposals here. One is -fopt-info which prints out
>>> informational notes to stderr, and the
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> There are two proposals here. One is -fopt-info which prints out
>> informational notes to stderr, and the other is -fopt-report which is
>> more elaborate form of dump files. A
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> There are two proposals here. One is -fopt-info which prints out
> informational notes to stderr, and the other is -fopt-report which is
> more elaborate form of dump files. Are you object to both or just the
> opt-report one?
What? I'm
There are two proposals here. One is -fopt-info which prints out
informational notes to stderr, and the other is -fopt-report which is
more elaborate form of dump files. Are you object to both or just the
opt-report one? The former is no different from any other
informational notes we already have
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> x...@google.com (Rong Xu) writes:
>>>
After some off-line discussion, we decided to use a more general approach
>>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> This warnings/notes are caused
>> by inconsistent profile due to data race (which is currently common in
>> multi-thread programs),
>
> I never quite understood why the gcov counters are not simply marked
> __thread. This would make the profil
> This warnings/notes are caused
> by inconsistent profile due to data race (which is currently common in
> multi-thread programs),
I never quite understood why the gcov counters are not simply marked
__thread. This would make the profiled programs faster too because
they wouldn't bounce cache lin
While discussion for trunk version is still going, it is ok for google branches.
thanks,
David
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Rong Xu wrote:
> After some off-line discussion, we decided to use a more general approach
> to control the printing of optimization messages/warnings. We will
> intro
Richard, Thanks for the comments.
Let me give some background of the patch: The initial intention of the
patch is to suppress
the verbose warnings and notes emitted in profile-use compilation.
This warnings/notes are caused
by inconsistent profile due to data race (which is currently common in
mul
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> x...@google.com (Rong Xu) writes:
>>
>>> After some off-line discussion, we decided to use a more general approach
>>> to control the printing of optimization messages/warnings. We wil
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> x...@google.com (Rong Xu) writes:
>
>> After some off-line discussion, we decided to use a more general approach
>> to control the printing of optimization messages/warnings. We will
>> introduce a new option -fopt-info:
>> * fopt-info=0 or fno
OK. I'll keep it in mind. We probably won't include all the messages
in one shot. But we do plan to add all of them finally because we
believe they are helpful for tracking the performance.
-Rong
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> x...@google.com (Rong Xu) writes:
>
>> After so
x...@google.com (Rong Xu) writes:
> After some off-line discussion, we decided to use a more general approach
> to control the printing of optimization messages/warnings. We will
> introduce a new option -fopt-info:
> * fopt-info=0 or fno-opt-info: no message will be emitted.
> * fopt-info or fo
17 matches
Mail list logo
