Re: [PATCH] enabling gprof for cross builds

[Mark Shinwell <shinwell@codesourcery.com>]

Mark Shinwell wrote:
> Ben Elliston wrote:
>>> Does that caveat mean that a configure test (involving the build
>>> compiler's capability and the pointer size of the target) should be
>>> used to determine whether to build gprof?  I hear that this might be
>>> overkill.
>>
>> You should certainly make sure that users aren't tripped up by any
>> caveats (either at build time, or runtime, if you prefer).  Don't
>> allow the cross-gprof to produce erroneous results.
> 
> After some more investigations today, I'm lead to believe that this is 
> in fact a non-caveat.  Suppose we have the situation where binutils is 
> built with a host compiler that does not possess a 64-bit integer type 
> and the user then attempts to invoke gprof on a 64-bit executable.  In 
> this scenario I believe that gprof is going to report an error anyway, 
> since bfd will not have been built with 64-bit support and so will 
> refuse to open the executable.
> 
> I therefore think that my original patch is in fact sufficient.
> 
> I've tried to test this hypothesis by adjusting the configure variables 
> to simulate a host compiler lacking in a 64-bit data type, but I have so 
> far failed to get this to work.  Perhaps someone here might be able to 
> confirm the above behaviour of bfd from their prior knowledge...

Could I ping on this one please.

Mark