Re: [google] Modification of gcov pmu format to reduce gcda size bloat (issue 6427063)

[cmang at google dot com]

http://codereview.appspot.com/6427063/diff/11002/gcc/gcov-io.h
File gcc/gcov-io.h (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6427063/diff/11002/gcc/gcov-io.h#newcode688
gcc/gcov-io.h:688: gcov_unsigned_t index;   /* The corresponding string
table index */
On 2012/08/24 22:30:30, davidxl wrote:
> Is this field necessary?

For the purposes of gcov_dump output we wanted to output not only the
string table entry but also its index in the string table just in case
there were any problems with ordering that might map filetags to the
wrong filename. Because of this and the fact that gcov.c and gcov-dump.c
read one entry at a time, it seemed better to have the index be
self-contained within the struct to avoid extra logic.

Also, since the string table entry has to be written with its
corresponding index for gcov-dump, the gcov_write_string_table_entry
function could have a similar syntax to the ll/brm writing functions.

http://codereview.appspot.com/6427063/diff/11002/gcc/gcov-io.h#newcode689
gcc/gcov-io.h:689: char* filename;          /* The filename that belongs
at this index */
On 2012/08/24 22:30:30, davidxl wrote:
> Can this field name be generalized?

Generalized in what way? I used this name because it was used before in
the old gcda format.

http://codereview.appspot.com/6427063/diff/11002/libgcc/pmu-profile.c
File libgcc/pmu-profile.c (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6427063/diff/11002/libgcc/pmu-profile.c#newcode83
libgcc/pmu-profile.c:83:
On 2012/08/24 22:30:30, davidxl wrote:
> Who is the caller to this interface?

> It should be declared in gcov-io.h

The only current caller of this is
https://critique.corp.google.com/#review/31972005. This is also the same
for the other two ll/brm writing functions. Should I declare those in
gcov-io.h as well?

http://codereview.appspot.com/6427063/