From: "Martin Liška" <mliska@suse.cz>
To: David Taylor <dtaylor@emc.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: GCC's instrumentation and the target environment
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 09:19:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <194f90a5-6a02-b8ee-d454-fe1338a2f542@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25767.1572632020@usendtaylorx2l>
On 11/1/19 7:13 PM, David Taylor wrote:
> I wish to use GCC based instrumentation on an embedded target. And I
> am finding that GCC's libgcov.a is not well suited to my needs.
>
> Ideally, all the application entry points and everthing that knows
> about the internals of the implementation would be in separate files
> from everything that does i/o or otherwise uses 'system services'.
>
> Right now GCC has libgcov-driver.c which includes both gcov-io.c and
> libgcov-driver-system.c.
Hello.
>
> What I'd like is a stable API between the routines that 'collect' the
> data and the routines that do the i/o. With the i/o routines being
> non-static and in a separate file from the others that is not
> #include'd.
>
> I want them to be replaceable by the application. Depending upon
> circumstances I can imagine the routines doing network i/o, disk i/o,
> or using a serial port.
What's difference in between i/o and disk i/o? What about using a NFS
file system into which you can save the data (via -fprofile-dir=/mnt/mynfs/...)?
I can imagine dump into stderr for example. That can be quite easily doable.
Martin
>
> I want one version of libgcov.a for all three with three different
> sets of i/o routines that I can build into the application. If the
> internals of instrumentation changes, I want to not have to change the
> i/o routines or anything in the application.
>
> If you think of it in disk driver terms, some of the routines in
> libgcov.a provide a DDI -- an interface of routines that the
> application call call. For applications that exit, one of the
> routines is called at program exit. For long running applications,
> there are routines in the DDI to dump and flush the accumulated
> information.
>
> And the i/o routines can be thought of as providing a DKI -- what the
> library libgcov.a expects of the environment -- for example, fopen and
> fwrite.
>
> There's also the inhibit_libc define. While if you don't have headers
> you might have a hard time including <stdio.h> or some of the other
> header files, if the environment has a way of doing i/o or saving the
> results, there is no real reason why it should not be possible to
> provide instrumentation.
>
> Comments?
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-04 9:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-01 18:18 David Taylor
2019-11-04 9:19 ` Martin Liška [this message]
2019-11-04 13:06 ` David.Taylor
2019-11-04 13:45 ` Joel Sherrill
2019-11-06 8:04 ` Martin Liška
2020-11-14 13:04 ` Sebastian Huber
2019-11-20 15:22 David Taylor
2019-11-21 12:43 ` Martin Liška
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=194f90a5-6a02-b8ee-d454-fe1338a2f542@suse.cz \
--to=mliska@suse.cz \
--cc=dtaylor@emc.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).