> * Unfortunately Callgrind doesn't save the full stack trace so what you
> see is a statistical breakdown for callees. It doesn't necessarily mean
> that a call path displayed actually exists deeper than its first level.
> But the numbers add-up so this is minor.
You might give a try to --num-c
On 2012-06-17, at 11:54 PM, t-rexky wrote:
> When I have a moment I will check my target configuration once again and if
> this does not help I will spend some time with
> a debugger to see if I can figure out where things go wrong. I'm afraid
> though that I will get completely lost in the co
On 01/07/2012 16:16, t-rexky wrote:
I discovered that if I rebuild stage 3 with BOOT_CFLAGS="-g -O0", the
warnings in stage 3 compiler all disappear!
This is extremely wierd!
So it looks like something is affected by the optimization level. Usually,
it is an uninitialized variable, buffer ove
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20120701 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20120701/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
* Unfortunately Callgrind doesn't save the full stack trace so what you
see is a statistical breakdown for callees. It doesn't necessarily mean
that a call path displayed actually exists deeper than its first level.
But the numbers add-up so this is
