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, RFC] gcov: dump in a static dtor instead of in an atexit handler

From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at acm dot org>
To: Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>, Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:54:00 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] gcov: dump in a static dtor instead of in an atexit handler
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <dd23acd2-392b-e39f-1f42-b6d383308abf@suse.cz> <521cd409-284b-b109-e26f-00a312eb06cc@acm.org> <447a5571-5a7c-32a6-a72d-b268af13f733@suse.cz> <5270de7f-71e7-12d0-8046-460c75005399@suse.cz> <yddwphvulm2.fsf@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> <183356f0-d8cf-ec59-8bc5-c8d7cd920092@suse.cz>

On 09/29/16 08:49, Martin Liška wrote:

Ideally we should have a macro for each target telling whether it supports priorities or not.
However, we probably don't have? I would suggest to make the test conditional just for main
targets which support priorities?

or a dg_effective_target test. Probably overkill if there's exactly one targetimpacted.


nathan

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] gcov: dump in a static dtor instead of in an atexit handler
  - From: Nathan Sidwell

References:
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] gcov: dump in a static dtor instead of in an atexit handler
  - From: Martin Liška
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] gcov: dump in a static dtor instead of in an atexit handler
  - From: Rainer Orth
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] gcov: dump in a static dtor instead of in an atexit handler
  - From: Martin Liška

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