Re: [3.4-BIB] fix profiling

[Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>]

> Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >Yes, you should make libgcc to work on 16bit ints, but it is not needed
> >for gcov or gcc itself.
> >libgcc should also work on 9bit chars and similar weirdness.
> >
> >The reason why I changed the declaration was the fact that the constant
> >has been already output as 64bit, probably because of typo and I didn't
> You mean some version of the b-i-b branch wrote it as a 64 bit int, or
> some earlier version wrote a 64bit int? I wouldn't be worried about
> either case.

No, it did write it as 64bit int and read in libgcc as 32bit
missaligning the structure.
The code to flush out the structure in profile.c didn't match
declaration and initializer so runtime crashed.
> 
> >want to run into problems with 16bit/8bit machines.
> I now understand this one - thanks. However, currently, the
> (read,write)_unsigned functions will process an unsigned int, so even
> though the object file represents the version number in all 32 bits, we'll
> always mismatch, because we only see the bottom 16bits from the file
> (actually, I think we'll get a read error, due to overflow).
We will have to fix this next.

Honza
> 
> 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
>