bject: [PATCH] Fix profile_quality sanity check.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-01-18 Martin Liska
* profile-count.h (enum profile_quality): Add
profile_uninitialized as the first value. Do not number values
as they are zero based.
(profile_count::verify): Update sanity
s?
I'm running regression tests.
Martin
>From e1159c2404947f675200efc4476e7e0994b81101 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:27:40 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix profile_quality sanity check.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-01-18 Martin Liska
* profile-count.h (enu
On 01/19/2018 01:11 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 01/18/2018 04:57 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 01/18/2018 03:59 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
Following patch adds a new enum value so that we don't see following warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01211.html
Hi,
with the patch,
On 01/18/2018 04:57 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 01/18/2018 03:59 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Following patch adds a new enum value so that we don't see following warning:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01211.html
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> with the patch, I still see the same warn
On 01/18/2018 03:59 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
Following patch adds a new enum value so that we don't see following warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01211.html
Hi,
with the patch, I still see the same warning.
And not surprisingly, given that profile_precise is still
Hi.
Following patch adds a new enum value so that we don't see following warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01211.html
Apart from that I decided to not to number values of the enum as it uses
default number. Is it welcome?
Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survi
