From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26020 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2002 13:46:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26006 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2002 13:46:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uha.cs.bris.ac.uk) (137.222.102.57) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Oct 2002 13:46:53 -0000 Received: from codesourcery.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by uha.cs.bris.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9EDkFf19494; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 14:46:32 +0100 Message-ID: <3DAACAA7.9020209@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 09:09:00 -0000 From: Nathan Sidwell Organization: Codesourcery LLC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Hubicka CC: Qiong Cai , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: new edge coverage profiler on gcc 3.3 References: <3DA9280F.9070601@cse.unsw.edu.au> <20021013181921.GG6766@kam.mff.cuni.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00695.txt.bz2 Jan Hubicka wrote: > It is complete and it should produce .da files. > Does the program crash at the end? There seems to be common collision > with the routines in glibc handling of profiler format. do you think we should rename those routines for 3.3? (Separately) I think we should break them out of libgcc into a libgcov, so that they work with a shared link of libgcc. We can have a spec which turns -fcoverage into -lgcov. This is appropriate for 3.4, but is it too for 3.3? Oh, yes. Does your recent change to use the mangled name for functions require tweaks in the stuff I did on b-i-b? nathan -- Dr Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC 'But that's a lie.' - 'Yes it is. What's your point?' nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org