From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16449 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2003 18:38:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16442 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2003 18:38:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (195.135.220.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2003 18:38:17 -0000 Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Hermes.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F218171E0D7; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:38:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from aj by arthur.inka.de with local (Exim 4.12) id 1ABIRS-00077W-00; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:38:14 +0200 To: Jan Hubicka Cc: Zack Weinberg , Zdenek Dvorak , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Patch ping References: <20031019101617.GA15107@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <874qy5ruw7.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <20031019183138.GX15904@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> From: Andreas Jaeger Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20031019183138.GX15904@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> (Jan Hubicka's message of "Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:31:38 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg01642.txt.bz2 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1399 Jan Hubicka writes: >> Zdenek Dvorak writes: >>=20 >> > Hello, >> > >> > could someone please review >> > >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-07/msg02991.html? >> > >> > I would like to get this in, since it uses value profiling, and I feel >> > wrong about having a piece of unused and therefore untested code in gc= c. >> > And of course, it also makes a nice improvement in benchmarks. >>=20 >> I don't see anything wrong with the code, but I would like someone >> more familiar with the profiler to comment. Since this was submitted >> well before the deadline and only affects a non-default optimization >> mode, I think it can go in now if (say) Nathan Sidwell thinks the code >> is sound. > > The actual interface to profiling code came in earlier with separate > patch. This patch has no consequences to the profiling, just uses the > interface we agreed on earlier, so I would say that there is no problem > from profiler side. (this is also why I don't feel this belong to area I > can approve as gcov maintainer) Zack, since the profiler code is ok, I interpret your message that this is approved. Correct? Thanks, Andreas --=20 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, 90429 N=FCrnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint =3D 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-length: 197 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/ktoWOJpWPMJyoSYRAm23AJ9aGj1MTugQ021VuWVGzMBSqZfzFQCfeY9t znAs1ADmZPzBJ6COc/mkaXc= =LPDA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--