On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Rong Xu <x...@google.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I merged this old patch with current trunk. I also make the following changes > (1) not using weak references. Now every *profile_atomic() has it's > own .o so that none of them will be in the final binary if > -fprofile-generate-atomic is not specified. > (2) more value profilers have the atomic version. > (3) not link to libatomic. I used to link the libatomic in the > presence of -fprofile-generate-atomic, per Andrew's suggestion. It > used to work. But now if I can add -latomic in the SPEC, it cannot > find the libatomic.so.1 (unless I specify the PATH). I did not find an > easy way to statically link libatomic.a. Andrew: Do you have any > suggestion? Or should we let the user link to libatomic.a if the > builtins are not expanded?
It should work for an installed GCC. For testing you might need something that is included inside testsuite/lib/atomic-dg.exp which sets the library path to include libatomic build directory. I think now we require libatomic in more cases (C11 atomic support for an example). Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > Is this OK for trunk? > > Thanks, > > -Rong > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Rong Xu <x...@google.com> wrote: >> Function __gcov_indirect_call_profiler_atomic (which contains call to >> the atomic function) is always emitted in libgcov. >> Since we only link libatomic when -fprofile-gen-atomic is specified, >> we have to make the atomic function weak -- otherwise, there is a >> unsat for regular FDO gen build (of course, when the builtin is not >> expanded). >> >> An alternative it to always link libatomic together with libgcov. Then >> we don't need the weak stuff. I'm not sure when one is better. >> >> -Rong >> >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 01/03/2013 04:42 PM, Rong Xu wrote: >>>> It links libatomic when -fprofile-gen-atomic is specified for FDO >>>> instrumentation build. Here I assume libatomic is always installed. >>>> Andrew: do you think if this is reasonable? >>>> >>>> It also disables the functionality if target does not support weak >>>> (ie. TARGET_SUPPORTS_WEAK == 0). >>> >>> Since you're linking libatomic, you don't need weak references. >>> >>> I think its ok to assume libatomic is installed, given that the >>> user has had to explicitly use the command-line option. >>> >>> >>> r~
