This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Jes Sorensen <jes@linuxcare.com> writes: > struct raw_arc > { > /* FIXME: Checking a host compiler define means that we can't use > a cross gprof to the alpha. */ > #ifdef __alpha__ > char from_pc[8]; > char self_pc[8]; > char count[8]; > #else > char from_pc[4]; > char self_pc[4]; > char count[4]; > #endif > }; Doesn't this mean profiling on Alpha doesn't work at all? THen of course we should change it. > struct gmon_hist_hdr > { > char low_pc[sizeof (char *)]; /* base pc address of sample buffer */ > char high_pc[sizeof (char *)]; /* max pc address of sampled buffer */ > char hist_size[4]; /* size of sample buffer */ > char prof_rate[4]; /* profiling clock rate */ > char dimen[15]; /* phys. dim., usually "seconds" */ > char dimen_abbrev; /* usually 's' for "seconds" */ > }; > > For gprof it looks like this - note the extra version field: > > struct raw_phdr > { > /* FIXME: Checking a host compiler define means that we can't use > a cross gprof to the alpha. */ > #ifdef __alpha__ > char low_pc[8]; /* base pc address of sample buffer */ > char high_pc[8]; /* max pc address of sampled buffer */ > #else > char low_pc[4]; /* base pc address of sample buffer */ > char high_pc[4]; /* max pc address of sampled buffer */ > #endif > char ncnt[4]; /* size of sample buffer (plus this header) */ > > char version[4]; /* version number */ > char profrate[4]; /* profiling clock rate */ > char spare[3*4]; /* reserved */ > }; No, you misread the definition. The hist_size field corresponds to ncnt. The prof_rate rate to version. The dimen and dimen_abbrev field correspond to the profrate and spare field. So we cannot simply add a new field, we would have to reorder them. The question is: was it always like this? Profiling certainly worked for x86. > Two questions, how will the latter affect architectures like the x86? See above. The history has to be investigated. > Second what about Sparc64/MIPS64/PPC64? Do you guys have profile > support running already that will break from this? I wouldn't worry, only SPARC64 is at a stage where they can run something and I guess they still don't mind breaking something non-essential as this. -- ---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |