> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Seymour [mailto:jseym...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: 28 March 2013 15:37
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Clarification of cloned function names during profiling
>
> FWIW I fixed this for constprop because a cu
On 03/28/13 15:28, Paulo Matos wrote:
> On the other hand this seems to imply that nobody actually uses gprof
> anymore...
FWIW I fixed this for constprop because a customer reported it as an
issue, so at least 1 person is still using it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Seymour [mailto:jseym...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: 28 March 2013 15:17
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Clarification of cloned function names during profiling
>
>
> I had a patch committed to trunk gpr
On 03/28/13 09:40, Paulo Matos wrote:
> In certain situations, GCC will produce functions called foo.isra.0 or
> foo.constprop.0. These function names are created by
> clone_function_name where suffix is isra or constprop.
>
> On the other hand in gprof/corefile.c (function core_sym_class) of
> b
Hello,
I have been investigating gcc and gprof interaction.
I have noticed something strange, even though I cannot reproduce an example.
In certain situations, GCC will produce functions called foo.isra.0 or
foo.constprop.0.
These function names are created by clone_function_name where suffix
