RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] Fix autoprofiledbootstrap build

[Eugene Rozenfeld <Eugene.Rozenfeld@microsoft.com>]

I took another look at this. We actually collect perf data when building the libraries. So, we have ./prev-gcc/perf.data, ./prev-libcpp/perf.data, ./prev-libiberty/perf.data, etc. But when creating gcov data for  -fauto-profile build of cc1plus or cc1 we only use ./prev-gcc/perf.data . So, a better solution would be either having a single perf.data for all builds (gcc and libraries) or merging perf.data files before attempting autostagefeedback. What would you recommend?

Thanks,

Eugene

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 12:01 PM
To: Eugene Rozenfeld <Eugene.Rozenfeld@microsoft.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] Fix autoprofiledbootstrap build

[You don't often get email from jeffreyalaw@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

On 11/21/22 14:57, Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc-patches wrote:
> 1. Fix gcov version
> 2. Don't attempt to create an autoprofile file for cc1 since cc1plus 
> (not cc1) is not invoked when building cc1 3. Fix documentation typo
>
> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
>       * c/Make-lang.in: Don't attempt to create an autoprofile file for cc1
>       * cp/Make-lang.in: Fix gcov version
>       * lto/Make-lang.in: Fix gcov version
>       * doc/install.texi: Fix documentation typo

Just to be 100% sure.  While the compiler is built with cc1plus, various runtime libraries are still build with the C compiler and thus would use cc1.  AFAICT it looks like we don't try to build the runtime libraries to get any data about the behavior of the C compiler.  Can you confirm?


Assuming that's correct, this is fine for the trunk.


Thanks,

Jeff