A testcase anad a patch for the __gmon_start__ problem on PPC.

[Franz Sirl]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 09:34:44PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
> > > I don't think so. You can call it an ABI bug if you want.
> >
> > Hmm. Anyway, in what way is your patch different from the previous
> > situation when WEAK_GMON_START was still honored? Isn't it better to just
> > revert the responsible patches? Why maintain 2 files if one was enough
> > before?
>
> The difference is if you do nothing, you will get the clean code. If
> you want the binary compatibility, you can use the old one.

What if I want both the clean code and backwards compatibility? Go with my 
suggested solution? I tested that (one minor mod) with my testcase and it 
works fine. It depends on the fact that space is allocated for __gmon_start__ 
and initialized to 0. The first 2 words maybe touched by relocation, but 
starting with the 3rd word it stays at 0, which is an illegal opcode for PPC 
and thus no valid __gmon_start__ routine is there.
I wonder though how the size of the __gmon_start__ function gets calculated 
for allocation.

Franz.