diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'patches/gcc/4.0.1/110-pr20815-fix.patch')
| -rw-r--r-- | patches/gcc/4.0.1/110-pr20815-fix.patch | 121 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 121 deletions
diff --git a/patches/gcc/4.0.1/110-pr20815-fix.patch b/patches/gcc/4.0.1/110-pr20815-fix.patch deleted file mode 100644 index 7ac8ab50..00000000 --- a/patches/gcc/4.0.1/110-pr20815-fix.patch +++ /dev/null @@ -1,121 +0,0 @@ -Date: 18 May 2005 22:47:59 -0000 -Message-ID: <20050518224759.7352.qmail@sourceware.org> -From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> -To: dank@kegel.com -References: <20050407215701.20815.dank@kegel.com> -Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org -Subject: [Bug gcov/profile/20815] -fprofile-use barfs with "coverage mismatch for function '...' while reading counter 'arcs'." - - -------- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz 2005-05-18 22:47 ------- -Subject: Re: [Bug gcov/profile/20815] -fprofile-use barfs with "coverage mismatch for function '...' while reading counter 'arcs'." - -> -> ------- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz 2005-05-18 22:22 ------- -> Subject: Re: [Bug gcov/profile/20815] -fprofile-use barfs with "coverage mismatch for function '...' while reading counter 'arcs'." -> -> coverage_checksum_string already knows a bit about ignoring random seed -> produced mess. It looks like this needs to be extended somehow to -> handle namespaces too... - -This seems to solve the missmatch. Would it be possible to test it on -bigger testcase and if it works distile a testcase that don't use -file IO so it is more suitable for gcc regtesting? - -Index: coverage.c -=================================================================== -RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/coverage.c,v -retrieving revision 1.6.2.12.2.12 -diff -c -3 -p -r1.6.2.12.2.12 coverage.c -*** gcc-old/gcc/coverage.c 18 May 2005 07:37:31 -0000 1.6.2.12.2.12 ---- gcc/gcc/coverage.c 18 May 2005 22:45:36 -0000 -*************** coverage_checksum_string (unsigned chksu -*** 471,505 **** - as the checksums are used only for sanity checking. */ - for (i = 0; string[i]; i++) - { - if (!strncmp (string + i, "_GLOBAL__", 9)) -! for (i = i + 9; string[i]; i++) -! if (string[i]=='_') -! { -! int y; -! unsigned seed; -! int scan; -! -! for (y = 1; y < 9; y++) -! if (!(string[i + y] >= '0' && string[i + y] <= '9') -! && !(string[i + y] >= 'A' && string[i + y] <= 'F')) -! break; -! if (y != 9 || string[i + 9] != '_') -! continue; -! for (y = 10; y < 18; y++) -! if (!(string[i + y] >= '0' && string[i + y] <= '9') -! && !(string[i + y] >= 'A' && string[i + y] <= 'F')) -! break; -! if (y != 18) -! continue; -! scan = sscanf (string + i + 10, "%X", &seed); -! gcc_assert (scan); -! if (seed != crc32_string (0, flag_random_seed)) -! continue; -! string = dup = xstrdup (string); -! for (y = 10; y < 18; y++) -! dup[i + y] = '0'; -! break; -! } - break; - } - ---- 471,511 ---- - as the checksums are used only for sanity checking. */ - for (i = 0; string[i]; i++) - { -+ int offset = 0; -+ if (!strncmp (string + i, "_GLOBAL__N_", 11)) -+ offset = 11; - if (!strncmp (string + i, "_GLOBAL__", 9)) -! offset = 9; -! -! /* C++ namespaces do have scheme: -! _GLOBAL__N_<filename>_<wrongmagicnumber>_<magicnumber>functionname -! since filename might contain extra underscores there seems -! to be no better chance then walk all possible offsets looking -! for magicnuber. */ -! if (offset) -! for (;string[offset]; offset++) -! for (i = i + offset; string[i]; i++) -! if (string[i]=='_') -! { -! int y; -! -! for (y = 1; y < 9; y++) -! if (!(string[i + y] >= '0' && string[i + y] <= '9') -! && !(string[i + y] >= 'A' && string[i + y] <= 'F')) -! break; -! if (y != 9 || string[i + 9] != '_') -! continue; -! for (y = 10; y < 18; y++) -! if (!(string[i + y] >= '0' && string[i + y] <= '9') -! && !(string[i + y] >= 'A' && string[i + y] <= 'F')) -! break; -! if (y != 18) -! continue; -! if (!dup) -! string = dup = xstrdup (string); -! for (y = 10; y < 18; y++) -! dup[i + y] = '0'; -! } - break; - } - - - --- - - -http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20815 - -------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- -You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. - - |