From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-289363-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 12056 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2011 09:19:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 12047 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2011 09:19:17 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-ww0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:19:09 +0000
Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so416860wwf.8        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 02:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.37.197 with SMTP id y5mr7702139wbd.4.1302686348190; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 02:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.0.140 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 02:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimx-kE0Dg59kLTPy5U2XX4N3XMo2A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110412184923.33F942225D6@jade.mtv.corp.google.com>	<BANLkTimx-kE0Dg59kLTPy5U2XX4N3XMo2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:19:00 -0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=HJtUViEAqaXCwZSa=XFaTxLH+Ww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] Split Parse Timevar (issue4378056)
From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>
Cc: Lawrence Crowl <crowl@google.com>, reply@codereview.appspotmail.com, jason@redhat.com, 	gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00967.txt.bz2

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 14:49, Lawrence Crowl <crowl@google.com> wrote:
>> This patch provides more finer, more precise compile time information.
>> I sent an advisory mail some time ago, and it was good then. =A0Please
>> confirm for trunk.
>
> The patch looks fine to me, but of course it's Jason the one you need
> an OK from.

Pushing/popping timevars is not free.  What's the compile-time impact of th=
is
change (for -ftime-report, of course) - with small timed regions, does it n=
ot
just return garbage because of clock precision issues and overhead of
querying the clock iself?

Richard.