Re: [gcov] a few improvements

2012-06-10 Thread Nathan Sidwell
On 06/04/12 17:19, Xinliang David Li wrote: Another usage is FDO performance tuning trying build with different options/parameters, so it is common. This is in our build system for build reproducibility. If you're trying different options, your builds are not repeatable, so I'm not totally

Re: [gcov] a few improvements

2012-06-04 Thread Xinliang David Li
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 06/03/12 21:40, Xinliang David Li wrote: > >>> Can you explain this more -- what exactly are trying to do?  Are you >>> trying >>> to rebuild multiple times with the same coverage data, >> >> >> yes -- for instance, in the context of debu

Re: [gcov] a few improvements

2012-06-04 Thread Nathan Sidwell
On 06/03/12 21:40, Xinliang David Li wrote: Can you explain this more -- what exactly are trying to do? Are you trying to rebuild multiple times with the same coverage data, yes -- for instance, in the context of debugging a compiler problem, you will need to compile the same file multiple ti

Re: [gcov] a few improvements

2012-06-03 Thread Xinliang David Li
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 06/03/12 17:16, Xinliang David Li wrote: > >> Basically it makes it very difficult to rebuild the file with the >> profile data --- which makes problem triaging impossible. What is > > > Can you explain this more -- what exactly are tryin

Re: [gcov] a few improvements

2012-06-03 Thread Nathan Sidwell
On 06/03/12 17:16, Xinliang David Li wrote: Basically it makes it very difficult to rebuild the file with the profile data --- which makes problem triaging impossible. What is Can you explain this more -- what exactly are trying to do? Are you trying to rebuild multiple times with the same c

Re: [gcov] a few improvements

2012-06-03 Thread Xinliang David Li
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 06/03/12 05:51, Xinliang David Li wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Nathan Sidwell  wrote: >>> >>> I've committed this patch to fix and improve coverage reporting: >>> >>> 1) the time stamp local_tick will be -1 if the user ov

Re: [gcov] a few improvements

2012-06-03 Thread Nathan Sidwell
On 06/03/12 05:51, Xinliang David Li wrote: On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: I've committed this patch to fix and improve coverage reporting: 1) the time stamp local_tick will be -1 if the user overrides the random seed. In such cases the gcov data file should be deleted

Re: [gcov] a few improvements

2012-06-02 Thread Xinliang David Li
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > I've committed this patch to fix and improve coverage reporting: > > 1) the time stamp local_tick will be -1 if the user overrides the random > seed. In such cases the gcov data file should be deleted, just as it would > if the time cannot