As I just wrote, this patch needs work. the general points are:
1) exposing integers 0-3 to the user as switch values. Don't do that, give them
names. In this case a comma separated list of orthogonal names seems
appropriate. But see below.
2) Poor documentation. How might the user might choose an appropriate setting?
(what happens if compilations need to use different settings). What are 'edge'
and 'value' counters. Why might one want different settings for them?
I think this is jumping too deep into a solution with insufficient evidence.
Particularly, why two edges and values can be set differently. It doesn't lend
itself to extending to TLS, if that proves to be a good solution (trading memory
for time). Something along the lines of
'-fprofile-update={single,atomic,threaded},[edge,value]' might be better. I.e.
set the scheme as part of the option value, followed by a list of the things it
applies to. (and as I hope I've implied, it'd be good not to have that
separate list until proven otherwise).
On 07/28/16 08:32, marxin wrote:
libgcc/ChangeLog:
2016-07-28 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
Shouldn't the original authors be named here too? (applies to the other patches
too).
--- a/gcc/gcov-io.h
+++ b/gcc/gcov-io.h
@@ -169,6 +169,19 @@ see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively.
If not, see
+
+#if LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE > 32
+#define GCOV_TYPE_ATOMIC_FETCH_ADD_FN __atomic_fetch_add_8
+#define GCOV_TYPE_ATOMIC_FETCH_ADD BUILT_IN_ATOMIC_FETCH_ADD_8
+#else
+#define GCOV_TYPE_ATOMIC_FETCH_ADD_FN __atomic_fetch_add_4
+#define GCOV_TYPE_ATOMIC_FETCH_ADD BUILT_IN_ATOMIC_FETCH_ADD_4
+#endif
...
#if IN_LIBGCOV
+
+#if LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE > 32
+#define GCOV_TYPE_ATOMIC_FETCH_ADD_FN __atomic_fetch_add_8
+#define GCOV_TYPE_ATOMIC_FETCH_ADD BUILT_IN_ATOMIC_FETCH_ADD_8
+#else
+#define GCOV_TYPE_ATOMIC_FETCH_ADD_FN __atomic_fetch_add_4
+#define GCOV_TYPE_ATOMIC_FETCH_ADD BUILT_IN_ATOMIC_FETCH_ADD_4
+#endif
BTW, these two blocks look stunningly similar.
nathan
