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

[Manuel López-Ibáñez]

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.
> >
>