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]

Re: [PATCH] Don't error on coverage mismatch by request


In addition, the invoke.texi entry needs an opindex for the negative
form also according to PR 30330.

+ @opindex Wno-coverage-mismatch

Cheers,

Manuel.


On 14/01/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
I ain't no diagnostics maintainer but, don't we need a few testcases
for this? Like, testing for not enabled by default and testing with
the option enabled? Or that rule only applies for newbies like me?

Also, shouldn't this option be enabled only when -fprofile-use is enabled?

Cheers,

Manuel.


On 14/01/07, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/29/06, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote: > > > > This makes coverage mismatch errors a warning if requested by > > -Wcoverage-mismatch and assumes execution counts to be zero in > > this case as we do for missing coverage info. > > > > This allows the same profile data to be used if re-compiling with > > like small bugfixes added to a big project without the need to > > re-do possibly lengthy profiling. > > > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. > > > > Ok for mainline? > > I'm going to commit this in the next few days after another bootstrap/regtest. > > Thanks, > Richard. > > > 2006-11-23 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> > > > > * doc/invoke.texi (-Wcoverage-mismatch): Document. > > * common.opt (-Wcoverage-mismatch): New warning option. > > * coverage.c (get_coverage_counts): Ignore coverage mismatch > > if -Wcoverage-mismatch is given. >



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