This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Thursday, November 18, 2004, at 02:51 PM, Geoffrey Keating wrote:Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> writes:
Here is a hot/cold partitioning bug fix that is extremely safe. I didn't author this, but would like to see it get in.
Ok?
This needs a testcase.
That's going to be unfortunate, as I think the testcase was SPEC, and otherwise, I don't happen to have one. I tried to re-create one, but was unable. I'll ask around and see if Dale or Caroline has one.
How did you test the patch?
I didn't, the bug was rediscovered by Dale during internal testing. The patch has been tested internally by Dale and Caroline, but, exactly how I am not sure I can say, other than roughly, SPEC.
In particular, did you run the C++ testsuite on Darwin with flag_reorder_blocks_and_partition set?
Nope; C++ and reordering don't get along, as C++ uses EH, and EH turns it off.
I'm trying to get this in, as there are a host of outstanding hot-cold bug fixes that are not getting in, and are being hit by others outside Apple. I think that shipping hot-cold partitioning in 4.0.0 without the bug fixes that we already know about would be unfortunate, specially when we've already found the bugs and fixed them. This is why I am trying to help out.
I decided to try and help get this one in, as trivially, it cannot impact non-hot-cold compiles, and we already know that it helps with hot-cold compiles. I was hoping that I could get this in without the testcase.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |