I have submitted this patch.
* toplev.c (process_options): Do not warn when -ffunction-sections
and -fprofile are used together.
Index: gcc/toplev.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/toplev.c (revision 194306)
+++ gcc/toplev.c (working copy)
@@ -1478,12 +1478,6 @@ process_options (void)
}
}
- if (flag_function_sections && profile_flag)
- {
- warning (0, "-ffunction-sections disabled; it makes profiling
impossible");
- flag_function_sections = 0;
- }
-
#ifndef HAVE_prefetch
if (flag_prefetch_loop_arrays > 0)
{
Thanks,
-Sri.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 12/03/2012 01:08 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>
>>> Wondering if you got a chance to do this?
>>
>> Hmm, thinking more about this, it couldn't have been a 32 bit HPUX issue.
>> First that port claims to not support -ffunction-sections -- which is true,
>> we can't make arbitrarily named sections, though each function is placed
>> into its own $CODE$ section/subspace.
>>
>> Second, even with each function in its own $CODE$ subspace, profiling works.
>>
>> So it couldn't have been 32 bit HPUX.
>>
>> I think Ian's plan of going forward and see if anyone complains is
>> reasonable. Regardless, we're talking about OSs that are > 10 years old,.
>> the odds of folks building modern versions of GCC is pretty slim. The odds
>> they're building modern versions of GCC and care about both
>> function-sections and profiling is probably approaching zero.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
