This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: Clarification of cloned function names during profiling
- From: "Paulo Matos" <pmatos at broadcom dot com>
- To: "Joe Seymour" <jseymour at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:28:54 +0000
- Subject: RE: Clarification of cloned function names during profiling
- References: <19EB96622A777C4AB91610E763265F461B292C at SJEXCHMB14 dot corp dot ad dot broadcom dot com> <51545F03 dot 9070306 at codesourcery dot com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Seymour [mailto:jseymour@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: 28 March 2013 15:17
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Clarification of cloned function names during profiling
>
>
> I had a patch committed to trunk gprof that taught it to handle
> ".constprop" functions correctly:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-09/msg00260.html
>
> I suppose a similar patch would be required for isra functions as
> well...
Yes, I noticed that patch in HEAD. I have a hard time understanding how we now need to add all these exceptions to binutils because gcc changed its behaviour. Maybe binutils should allow anything that looks like .<chars>.<num> at a minimum.
On the other hand this seems to imply that nobody actually uses gprof anymore...
I will try to get a patch submitted to binutils upstream. Thanks for your comment on this.
--
Paulo Matos