This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Thread-safety of a profiled binary (and GCOV runtime library)

From: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>
To: Martin Liška <mliska at suse dot cz>
Cc: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at acm dot org>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, nathan at codesourcery dot com
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:15:55 -0700
Subject: Re: Thread-safety of a profiled binary (and GCOV runtime library)
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <a38ae496-1797-2c64-8f2f-93ef831e594e@suse.cz> <e2b89ea8-8998-5966-4030-448c67b9046d@acm.org> <5daa35e3-ac45-9609-2493-fc11cb5e7049@suse.cz>

Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> writes:
>
> I'm also surprised about it :) Let's start without invention of a new flag, I'll work on that.

You definitely need a new flag: atomic or per thread instrumentation
will almost certainly have significant overhead (either at run time
or in memory). Just making an existing facility a lot of slower
without a way around it is not a good idea.

BTW iirc there were patches from google on this a few years back.
May be still in some branch.

-Andi

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Thread-safety of a profiled binary (and GCOV runtime library)
  - From: Martin Liška

References:
- Thread-safety of a profiled binary (and GCOV runtime library)
  - From: Martin Liška
- Re: Thread-safety of a profiled binary (and GCOV runtime library)
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: Thread-safety of a profiled binary (and GCOV runtime library)
  - From: Martin Liška

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]