This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug gcov-profile/38784] New: gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Naming xgcc.* gcc.* when configure with "--enable-coverage=noopt"
- From: "rob1weld at aol dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 9 Jan 2009 15:11:49 -0000
- Subject: [Bug gcov-profile/38784] New: gcc 4.4.0 20090109 - Naming xgcc.* gcc.* when configure with "--enable-coverage=noopt"
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
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