public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug gcov-profile/38784] New: gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Naming xgcc.* gcc.* when configure with "--enable-coverage=noopt" @ 2009-01-09 15:12 rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-09 15:46 ` [Bug gcov-profile/38784] " rob1weld at aol dot com ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: rob1weld at aol dot com @ 2009-01-09 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs I'm building gcc 4.4.0 20090109 on i386-pc-solaris2.11 (OpenSolaris 2008.11). I configured using "--enable-coverage=noopt" (and complained here that it breaks the build http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38776 ) and made by simply typing "gmake". First there is a stage with "-fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage -frandom-seed=c-lang.o -O0" than another with "-O2 -fprofile-generate", then libgcc is built without either coverage or profiling ... hmmm ... I wanted to tryout how the coverage testing was working so in the root of the build directory I typed: # gcov -b gcc/xgcc xgcc.gcno:cannot open graph file # gprof gcc/xgcc gmon.out: No such file or directory # slocate gmon.out (prints nothing) # slocate gcc.gcno /usr/share/src/gcc_build/gcc/gcc.gcno # cd gcc # cp gcc.gcno xgcc.gcno # gcov -b xgcc xgcc.gcno:version `404e', prefer `304c' xgcc.gcda:cannot open data file # cp gcc.gcda xgcc.gcda # gcov -b xgcc xgcc.gcno:version `404e', prefer `304c' xgcc.gcda:version `404e', prefer version `304c' xgcc.gcda:corrupted 1. Why does gcov complain "version `404e', prefer `304c'" ? Is it saying it wants an _older_ version of gcov ? 2. Should the text be 'more similar' (almost the same) for both these error messages?: xgcc.gcno:version `404e', prefer `304c' xgcc.gcda:version `404e', prefer version `304c' 3. Should gcov 'know' about xgcc ? Do we need a "-DIN_GCC" (type of mechanism) for gcov to tell it to look for xgcc.* whenever it is told to look for gcc.* files (or just look for both and test the checksum to see which is correct)? Thanks, Rob PS: Note the "xgcc.gcda:corrupted" is probably because the tail was corrupted (not copied) and is not a "Bug" that is part of this Report. -- Summary: gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Naming xgcc.* gcc.* when configure with "--enable-coverage=noopt" Product: gcc Version: 4.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: gcov-profile AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: rob1weld at aol dot com GCC build triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11 GCC host triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11 GCC target triplet: i386-pc-solaris2.11 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38784 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug gcov-profile/38784] gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Naming xgcc.* gcc.* when configure with "--enable-coverage=noopt" 2009-01-09 15:12 [Bug gcov-profile/38784] New: gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Naming xgcc.* gcc.* when configure with "--enable-coverage=noopt" rob1weld at aol dot com @ 2009-01-09 15:46 ` rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-09 20:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: rob1weld at aol dot com @ 2009-01-09 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs ------- Comment #1 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-09 15:46 ------- I re-checked _which_ gcov was actually being ran it was Sun's. Fixed, by 1 and 2 invalid (old gcov does not read new files). The third Bug is valid still: 'gcov can't find "xgcc.gcno" and "xgcc.gcda" because they are being named "gcc.gcno" and "gcc.gcda". The gcov program should get both.' Rob -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38784 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug gcov-profile/38784] gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Naming xgcc.* gcc.* when configure with "--enable-coverage=noopt" 2009-01-09 15:12 [Bug gcov-profile/38784] New: gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Naming xgcc.* gcc.* when configure with "--enable-coverage=noopt" rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-09 15:46 ` [Bug gcov-profile/38784] " rob1weld at aol dot com @ 2009-01-09 20:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-12 14:09 ` rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-12 19:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-09 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs ------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-09 20:09 ------- The gcov data is based on the source name and not the executable now. So this is invalid. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38784 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug gcov-profile/38784] gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Naming xgcc.* gcc.* when configure with "--enable-coverage=noopt" 2009-01-09 15:12 [Bug gcov-profile/38784] New: gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Naming xgcc.* gcc.* when configure with "--enable-coverage=noopt" rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-09 15:46 ` [Bug gcov-profile/38784] " rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-09 20:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-12 14:09 ` rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-12 19:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: rob1weld at aol dot com @ 2009-01-12 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs ------- Comment #3 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-12 14:09 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > The gcov data is based on the source name and not the executable now. So this > is invalid. That is what I am saying. There should be an exclusion for that one file only. Rob -- rob1weld at aol dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38784 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug gcov-profile/38784] gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Naming xgcc.* gcc.* when configure with "--enable-coverage=noopt" 2009-01-09 15:12 [Bug gcov-profile/38784] New: gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Naming xgcc.* gcc.* when configure with "--enable-coverage=noopt" rob1weld at aol dot com ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2009-01-12 14:09 ` rob1weld at aol dot com @ 2009-01-12 19:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-12 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs ------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-12 19:29 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > That is what I am saying. There should be an exclusion for that one file only. Why? this is what should be done and how this has been implemented for a long time. -fprofile-arcs does not enable gmon profiling, It enables exact profiling of basic block edges and nothing more. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38784 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-01-12 19:29 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-01-09 15:12 [Bug gcov-profile/38784] New: gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Naming xgcc.* gcc.* when configure with "--enable-coverage=noopt" rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-09 15:46 ` [Bug gcov-profile/38784] " rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-09 20:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-12 14:09 ` rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-01-12 19:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).