This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH/Merge Request] Vtable Verification feature.
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Caroline Tice <cmtice at google dot com>
- Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, Benjamin De Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Benjamin De Kosnik <b dot dekosnik at gmail dot com>, Bhaskar Janakiraman <bjanakiraman at google dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 13:24:45 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/Merge Request] Vtable Verification feature.
- References: <CABtf2+Q47X0Ld6byo8R96TTKuYPkOsKO7tADRRWVpFqHHTsfuw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130801131950 dot 527bbf97 at oakwood> <CAD_=9DThid3P8ridA2OxP15L_KehaKzw=EGjSPwP=MT6vMAexg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CABtf2+TDrQObufSt4Zd46fjG6jH_XfuhRTeNJvsniP6BaCyEdg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CABtf2+Rn8Xn12xvWMx9FSBZ3EGaZQ77Qs-sh_z1XCxntsN9SVg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAD_=9DTNJuR-SrjKYAEHLoCYr2OZe8kboei9Xyc2Jug+x1=v9w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CABtf2+QW1bSowg49o=ZXpEi0-CpjNTd0v0RJMUzTLi2P6QjGqg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKOQZ8yYyd-ibFzDL7CeAi_se405DaJ0ymjE2G+KnefoPT+jsQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CABtf2+TyLn7MG1-kmpozR=AexgeJRN37YZQCDMx=+PRccDjixA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKOQZ8zybY=SXEeTZn0xqYNjVD9vKaATqQYw+czWBWB=g16bNQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CABtf2+Q=QnERVVCEbCsB6u8RSJohSa8WnSYBw+J+ywGmr_1MjQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKOQZ8xJDYdpWopDiT-0rpwvUfwcUpLsuRAtS79xfn6hcbkxaw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CABtf2+SQkvHR5=W3ca5dZmLbACHg_YvAV8jHfrOzogp05z8=rw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Caroline Tice <cmtice@google.com> wrote:
> 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
> acceptable?
Sure.
Ian
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Caroline Tice <cmtice@google.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
>>>> > 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