A Tuesday 07 October 2008 17:44:54, Pawel Veselov wrote:
> Here is an updated version.
>
I checked it in, after fixing a few issues I noticed --- there was
an off-by-one error, and the WCETRACING macro wasn't guarding accesses
to the `level' argument with `()'. Can't say I'm thrilled by the
hard
Here is an updated version.
Thanks!
Pawel.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Pedro Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A Tuesday 07 October 2008 01:43:57, Pawel Veselov escreveu:
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Pedro Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tuesday 07 October 2008 00
A Tuesday 07 October 2008 01:43:57, Pawel Veselov escreveu:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Pedro Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday 07 October 2008 00:49:05, Pawel Veselov wrote:
> >> +#define TRACING(level) ((WCETRACE_DEBUGGER_GET() & level) || \
> >
> > Can you rename TR
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 00:49:05, Pawel Veselov wrote:
> +#define TRACING(level) ((WCETRACE_DEBUGGER_GET() & level) || \
Can you rename TRACING into something else no so generic, please?
Sounds like asking for trouble down the line.
__WCETRACE_P ?
__WCETRACING ?
(_P is a semi-standard suf
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Pedro Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday 07 October 2008 00:49:05, Pawel Veselov wrote:
>> +#define TRACING(level) ((WCETRACE_DEBUGGER_GET() & level) || \
>
> Can you rename TRACING into something else no so generic, please?
> Sounds like asking for
Hi,
here is the patch for it. Sank a lot of time trying to understand why
the trace files had a malloc output in the beginning, overwriting the
first line. Turned out tracing was called after epilogue code has
closed the tracing. That would explain some of the changes in the
diff.
Thanks!
Pawel
Hi,
That will also mean that the functions will change, and if there were
binaries compiled against the old library, and they used the WCETRACE
functions, they won't work anymore until they have been recompiled.
Just wanted to check that's acceptable.
Thanks,
Pawel.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 9:
Hi,
Here is the status for cegcc-4.3.2 experiment :
So I started from a vanilla GCC-4.3.2 and the latest sources(09/13/08) of
upcoming binutils-2.19 branch
I first tried to generate a boostrap GCC for mingw32ce and I used the
following parameters for configure :
${BASE_DIRECTORY}/gcc/configure
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 15:29 -0700, Pawel Veselov wrote:
> would it be interesting if I did the following changes to wcetrace facilities:
>
> * replace WCETRACE with the define that first evaluates the current
> level and only then calls the trace printout. This will prevent
> arguments from being
Hi,
would it be interesting if I did the following changes to wcetrace facilities:
* replace WCETRACE with the define that first evaluates the current
level and only then calls the trace printout. This will prevent
arguments from being evaluated if the tracing is off for the specified
level.
* Pr
10 matches
Mail list logo
