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).