Re: [patch] timevar TLC

[Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>]

On 12-08-14 15:06 , Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
> > On 12-08-14 14:26 , Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > @@ -505,6 +507,16 @@ timevar_print (FILE *fp)
> > >        TIMEVAR.  */
> > >     start_time = now;
> > >
> > > +#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
> > > +  /* Pester those who add timevars with too long names.  */
> > > +  for (id = 0; id < (unsigned int) TIMEVAR_LAST; ++id)
> > > +    {
> > > +      struct timevar_def *tv = &timevars[(timevar_id_t) id];
> > > +      if ((timevar_id_t) id != TV_TOTAL && tv->used)
> > > +       gcc_assert (strlen (tv->name) <= name_width);
> > > +    }
> > > +#endif
> >
> >
> > I'm not liking this too much.  I would rather do truncation or wrapping.
> > Not ICEing.  And we'd do this all the time, not just with checking enabled.
>
> Wrapping would be bad, it'd break scripts that parse the -ftime-report output.

Hm, good point.

> Truncation is a bit silly, too: If the name is always truncated, why
> have the long name in the first place?

Yeah, I was more about wrapping it.  But you make a good point about 
scripting.

OK, unless anyone else has better ideas, let's put this in. The other 
cleanups are good enough, and we can revisit this later.

Is 32 the longest we can tolerate?


Thanks.  Diego.