On 9/18/18 10:00 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 9/17/18 1:39 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 9/12/18 4:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:27 AM Martin Liška wrote:
On 9/11/18 5:08 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
>> I've
On 9/17/18 1:39 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 9/12/18 4:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:27 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/11/18 5:08 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> I've discussed the topic with Alexander on the Cauldr
On 9/12/18 5:02 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
>> I see, I'm attaching patch that does that. I can confirm your test-case works
>> fine w/o -Wl,--dynamic-list-data.
>>
>> I'm wondering if it will work as well with dlopen/dlsym machinery? Or now
>> the linker
On 9/12/18 4:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:27 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> On 9/11/18 5:08 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
I've discussed the topic with Alexander on the Cauldron and we hoped
that the issue with unique
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:02 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> > I see, I'm attaching patch that does that. I can confirm your test-case
> > works
> > fine w/o -Wl,--dynamic-list-data.
> >
> > I'm wondering if it will work as well with dlopen/dlsym machine
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> I see, I'm attaching patch that does that. I can confirm your test-case works
> fine w/o -Wl,--dynamic-list-data.
>
> I'm wondering if it will work as well with dlopen/dlsym machinery? Or now
> the linker flag will be needed?
No, for this issue dlopen do
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:27 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 9/11/18 5:08 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> I've discussed the topic with Alexander on the Cauldron and we hoped
> >> that the issue with unique __gcov_root can be handled with DECL_COMMON i
On 9/11/18 5:08 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
>> I've discussed the topic with Alexander on the Cauldron and we hoped
>> that the issue with unique __gcov_root can be handled with DECL_COMMON in
>> each DSO.
>> Apparently this approach does not work as all
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> I've discussed the topic with Alexander on the Cauldron and we hoped
> that the issue with unique __gcov_root can be handled with DECL_COMMON in
> each DSO.
> Apparently this approach does not work as all DSOs in an executable have
> eventually
> just a
On 08/29/2018 06:08 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> Can you shortly tell why the testcase in the PR segfaults? Does the issue
>>> only affect indirect call profiling?
>>
>> What happens is that there will exist 2 instances of:
>> void * __gcov_indirect_c
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Can you shortly tell why the testcase in the PR segfaults? Does the issue
> > only affect indirect call profiling?
>
> What happens is that there will exist 2 instances of:
> void * __gcov_indirect_call_callee;
>
> one in main executable, and one anot
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> That said, it looks the shared library libgcov.so is overkill.
> >
> > It feels like that somehow.
> >
> >> Alexander may explain how that can be beneficial?
> >>
> >> Note that I can fix the segfault being caused by inter-DSO calls.
> >
> > I think
On 08/29/2018 02:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:13 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> On 08/29/2018 01:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:44 PM Martin Liška wrote:
On 08/29/2018 11:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:13 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 08/29/2018 01:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:44 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> On 08/29/2018 11:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:31 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
On 08/29/2018 01:18 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:44 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> On 08/29/2018 11:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:31 AM Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
Moving the thread from gcc ML into gcc-patches. That's first
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:44 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 08/29/2018 11:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:31 AM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> Moving the thread from gcc ML into gcc-patches. That's first implementation
> >> of shared libgcov library. Cu
On 08/29/2018 11:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:31 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> Moving the thread from gcc ML into gcc-patches. That's first implementation
>> of shared libgcov library. Currently inclusion of t-libgcov is added only
>> to *-linux targets. Is
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:31 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Moving the thread from gcc ML into gcc-patches. That's first implementation
> of shared libgcov library. Currently inclusion of t-libgcov is added only
> to *-linux targets. Is it fine to add to all configurations that already
> i
Hello.
Moving the thread from gcc ML into gcc-patches. That's first implementation
of shared libgcov library. Currently inclusion of t-libgcov is added only
to *-linux targets. Is it fine to add to all configurations that already
include 't-slibgcc t-slibgcc-elf-ver'?
Patch can bootstrap on ppc64
19 matches
Mail list logo
