On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:34:08 +0200 Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:56 PM Sergei Trofimovich via Gcc-patches > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > From: Sergei Trofimovich <siarh...@google.com> > > > > Before the change option handling did not accept an argument: > > xgcc: error: unknown profile reproducibility method '=serial' > > xgcc: note: valid arguments to '-fprofile-reproducible' are: > > multithreaded parallel-runs serial; did you mean 'serial'? > > > > The change also includes trailing '=' as part of option prefix. > > Does it still work without an option then? '-fprofile-reproducible' seems to be unacceptable value. Initially when I sent the patch I though there was no way to pass the option to gcc. But now I understand how to do it (case 4): Before: 1 $ gcc-11.0.0 -c -fprofile-reproducible a.c -o a gcc-11.0.0: error: missing argument to '-fprofile-reproducible' 2 $ gcc-11.0.0 -c -fprofile-reproducible= a.c -o a gcc-11.0.0: error: unknown profile reproducibility method '=' gcc-11.0.0: note: valid arguments to '-fprofile-reproducible' are: multithreaded parallel-runs serial 3 $ gcc-11.0.0 -c -fprofile-reproducible=serial a.c -o a gcc-11.0.0: error: unknown profile reproducibility method '=serial' gcc-11.0.0: note: valid arguments to '-fprofile-reproducible' are: multithreaded parallel-runs serial; did you mean 'serial'? 4 $ gcc-11.0.0 -c -fprofile-reproducibleserial a.c -o a # ok Note: case 4 was a way to pass the option. After: 1 $ ./xgcc -B. -c -fprofile-reproducible a.c -o a.o xgcc: error: unrecognized command-line option '-fprofile-reproducible'; did you mean '-fprofile-reproducible='? 2 $ ./xgcc -B. -c -fprofile-reproducible= a.c -o a.o xgcc: error: missing argument to '-fprofile-reproducible=' 3 $ ./xgcc -B. -c -fprofile-reproducible=serial a.c -o a.o # ok 4 $ ./xgcc -B. -c -fprofile-reproducibleserial a.c -o a.o xgcc: error: unrecognized command-line option '-fprofile-reproducibleserial'; did you mean '-fprofile-reproducible=serial'? Note: two problems here: a) case 2 got worse diagnostic b) case 4 broke something that worked before I'll look at "a)" to check if it can be easily fixed. Is "b)" worth handling as well? I'll need a hint or example how to handle an alias like that. > OK if so. > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * common.opt: Fix handling of '-fprofile-reproducible' option. > > --- > > gcc/common.opt | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/gcc/common.opt b/gcc/common.opt > > index dd68c61ae1d..84bf521128d 100644 > > --- a/gcc/common.opt > > +++ b/gcc/common.opt > > @@ -2228,7 +2228,7 @@ Enum(profile_reproducibility) String(parallel-runs) > > Value(PROFILE_REPRODUCIBILIT > > EnumValue > > Enum(profile_reproducibility) String(multithreaded) > > Value(PROFILE_REPRODUCIBILITY_MULTITHREADED) > > > > -fprofile-reproducible > > +fprofile-reproducible= > > Common Joined RejectNegative Var(flag_profile_reproducible) > > Enum(profile_reproducibility) Init(PROFILE_REPRODUCIBILITY_SERIAL) > > -fprofile-reproducible=[serial|parallel-runs|multithreaded] Control > > level of reproducibility of profile gathered by -fprofile-generate. > > > > -- > > 2.28.0 > > -- Sergei