Re: Future plans for gprof

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >> >   http://www.kegel.com/gmon.patch
> >>
> >> I don't know that the above patch is `perfectly reasonable' :-) It
> >> modifies a gprof data structure in a way that makes it incompatible with
> >> every other gprof implementation (all the ones I've seen came from the
> >> same source).  I think it would be better to define a new data
> >> structures that could handle this.
> >
> > thanks for replying.  I'm not sure it causes any incompatibility.
> > I'm pretty sure you don't need to recompile gprof after this patch;
> > gprof compiled before the patch works fine with user executables
> > compiled with a patched glibc.  The patch doesn't affect the format
> > of data on disk.
> >
> > Can you be more precise about how this patch causes an incompatibility?
> 
> Consider programs that are accesing that data (which sits in a library)
> directly (not written to disk).  They will be affected.

To access that data, they perforce must include the same .h file.
But that gives them all the format changes they need; if
they compile with no warnings, they should work fine.

In any case, Ulrich applied the patch; it'll be in glibc 2.2.92.
See
http://bugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&pr=4379

- Dan