From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8694 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2015 10:57:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8685 invoked by uid 89); 11 Jun 2015 10:57:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:57:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED8DB3A62AD; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:57:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-89.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.89]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t5BAvcEr005566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:57:39 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t5BAvax6031170; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:57:36 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id t5BAvYJd031169; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:57:34 +0200 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:00:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Bernd Edlinger Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Richard Biener , Jeff Law , Eric Botcazou Subject: Re: [RFC] Sanitize rtx_addr_can_trap_p_1 Message-ID: <20150611105734.GV10247@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20150611080203.GT10247@tucnak.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00825.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:38:40PM +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:02:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > IMHO the > > #if 0 > > #endif > > stuff doesn't belong to the patch. > > > > I just wanted to leave a hint, how I debugged this function, and how > to assess the performance of the decision that is taken here. What I usually do in these cases is something like: FILE *f = fopen ("/tmp/mylogfile", "a"); fprintf (f, "%s %d ...\n", main_input_filename ? main_input_filename : "-", (int) BITS_PER_WORD, ...); fclose (f); and do full bootstrap/regtest (usually both x86_64-linux and i686-linux) with it, then look at the log file. But I keep those for myself, don't keep them even as comments. In this case, you could post the hack as incremental patch for interested folks to test on their architecture, but I'm not convinced we want to keep it in the source, whether #if 0 or in a comment. So, for a full bootstrap/regtest, how many log messages do you get, and are they always resolved conservatively (i.e. if unsure the offset is ok, return 1)? Jakub