Re: Future plans for gprof

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > The problem is, gprof is partly in binutils, and partly in glibc.
> > The glibc maintainer is very, very picky about what patches
> > he'll accept.  In particular, he has not yet accepted the perfectly
> > reasonable patch
> >   http://www.kegel.com/gmon.patch
> > which fixes support for large programs.  I haven't tried hard
> > enough to get it accepted; perhaps some readers of this list
> > could advise me on how to proceed.
> 
> 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.

Hi Andrew,
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?

Thanks!
- Dan