This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils 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: [PATCH] enabling gprof for cross builds

Ben Elliston wrote:
Does that caveat mean that a configure test (involving the build
compiler's capability and the pointer size of the target) should be
used to determine whether to build gprof?  I hear that this might be

You should certainly make sure that users aren't tripped up by any caveats (either at build time, or runtime, if you prefer). Don't allow the cross-gprof to produce erroneous results.

After some more investigations today, I'm lead to believe that this is in fact a non-caveat. Suppose we have the situation where binutils is built with a host compiler that does not possess a 64-bit integer type and the user then attempts to invoke gprof on a 64-bit executable. In this scenario I believe that gprof is going to report an error anyway, since bfd will not have been built with 64-bit support and so will refuse to open the executable.

I therefore think that my original patch is in fact sufficient.

I've tried to test this hypothesis by adjusting the configure variables to simulate a host compiler lacking in a 64-bit data type, but I have so far failed to get this to work. Perhaps someone here might be able to confirm the above behaviour of bfd from their prior knowledge...


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