From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18116 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2009 14:42:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 18101 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2009 14:42:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz (HELO sunsite.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.15.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:41:58 +0000 Received: from sunsite.mff.cuni.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sunsite.mff.cuni.cz (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n5GEfqtI016656; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:41:52 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by sunsite.mff.cuni.cz (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n5GEfqvb016655; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:41:52 +0200 Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:42:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Bingfeng Mei , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Questionable function renaming Message-ID: <20090616144151.GN3101@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <7FB04A5C213E9943A72EE127DB74F0AD93C5706309@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <84fc9c000906160556h68b3ccf3k9b89ac8d0fd68211@mail.gmail.com> <7FB04A5C213E9943A72EE127DB74F0AD93C5706318@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <84fc9c000906160602x243e7abo9ff7c7a1a4d3d5e7@mail.gmail.com> <7FB04A5C213E9943A72EE127DB74F0AD93C570632E@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <20090616143400.GF27669@virgil.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090616143400.GF27669@virgil.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00371.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 04:34:01PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 06:49:58AM -0700, Bingfeng Mei wrote: > > Thanks, I didn't notice both functions have different arguments after transformation. > > However, gprof produces T.251 in its statistics, completely unknown > > to user. Could GCC use more informative name here, e.g., saveInputFileMetaInfo.251? > > The current trunk (what is to become gcc 4.5) already gives clones a > more sensible name, in your example it would be > saveInputFileMetaInfo.clone.0 (IIRC). Yeah, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg01186.html Jakub