I took another look at this. We actually collect perf data when building the libraries. So, we have ./prev-gcc/perf.data, ./prev-libcpp/perf.data, ./prev-libiberty/perf.data, etc. But when creating gcov data for -fauto-profile build of cc1plus or cc1 we only use ./prev-gcc/perf.data . So, a better solution would be either having a single perf.data for all builds (gcc and libraries) or merging perf.data files before attempting autostagefeedback. What would you recommend?
Thanks, Eugene -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 12:01 PM To: Eugene Rozenfeld <eugene.rozenf...@microsoft.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] Fix autoprofiledbootstrap build [You don't often get email from jeffreya...@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] On 11/21/22 14:57, Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc-patches wrote: > 1. Fix gcov version > 2. Don't attempt to create an autoprofile file for cc1 since cc1plus > (not cc1) is not invoked when building cc1 3. Fix documentation typo > > Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * c/Make-lang.in: Don't attempt to create an autoprofile file for cc1 > * cp/Make-lang.in: Fix gcov version > * lto/Make-lang.in: Fix gcov version > * doc/install.texi: Fix documentation typo Just to be 100% sure. While the compiler is built with cc1plus, various runtime libraries are still build with the C compiler and thus would use cc1. AFAICT it looks like we don't try to build the runtime libraries to get any data about the behavior of the C compiler. Can you confirm? Assuming that's correct, this is fine for the trunk. Thanks, Jeff
