public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug gcov-profile/110082] Coverage analysis vs. offloading compilation
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2023 14:04:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-110082-4-mcxAk09mdz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-110082-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110082
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110082
>
> --- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > (In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #3)
> > > I suppose you want to apply this generally, not only to offloaded
> > > functions and when offloading is enabled?
> >
> > It could be done just for the functions that aren't host only, i.e.
> > the offloading kernels or declare target functions, what the offloading LTO
> > streams out.
>
> Indeed my idea has been to apply this abstraction generally, without any
> conditionals on offloading constructs etc. That's for reasons of
> maintainability: to not add any more diverging code paths, requiring special
> testing (now, and for future changes), and to lessen possibility of surprising
> behavior re the diverging code paths doing different things. OK?
Yes, I think that's good.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-02 14:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-01 19:24 [Bug gcov-profile/110082] New: " tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-02 8:00 ` [Bug gcov-profile/110082] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-02 10:35 ` tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-02 10:41 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2023-06-02 10:45 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-02 12:28 ` tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-02 14:04 ` rguenther at suse dot de [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-110082-4-mcxAk09mdz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).