This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: [PATCH/Merge Request] Vtable Verification feature.

I was talking with Diego, and he suggested the possibility of putting
the log files in the same directory that the gcc dump files go, i.e.
the one specified by dump_base_name.  Do you think that would be

-- Caroline Tice

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Caroline Tice <> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>The output to the file doesn't have
>>> >> any indication of what file is being compiled, so it will be ambiguous
>>> >> when run in parallel.
>>> >
>>> > You are mistaken.  It outputs one line to the log file for each
>>> > compilation
>>> > unit.  The output line begins with the name of the file that was being
>>> > compiled.  In my use case, I have used this to build a very large
>>> > system,
>>> > which resulted in something like at 8000 line log file of counts, which
>>> > I
>>> > then used my sum script on to see how the verifications were going.
>>> I was mistaken in detail but I'm not sure I was mistaken in principle.
>>> What happens if you are building the large system twice in different
>>> directories on the same machine?  Or, for that matter, if two
>>> different people are doing so?  Or if one person did it a while ago,
>>> and now you want to do it, but you can't open the file because it is
>>> owned by the other person?
>>> Maybe you should simply change -fvtv-counts to take a file name, then
>>> we don't have to worry about any of this.
>> It's not quite that simple:  the -fvtv-counts flag actually causes two files
>> to be created; also there's another flag, -fvtv-debug that generates a third
>> file (i wanted a lot of information when I was working on and debugging this
>> feature).  Also if users are arbitrarily allowed to name the counts file
>> anything, the summing script program I wrote won't be able to find them.
> That doesn't seem like a compelling argument to me, since one could
> pass the file names to the summing script as well.
> As far as I can see, on a multi-user system, there is no reasonable
> alternative to permitting the user to specify the file names to use,
> or at least a directory where the files should be placed.  And if
> permit that, why not simply require it?
> Ian

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]