Re: A testcase anad a patch for the __gmon_start__ problem on PPC.

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 10:10:03PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 09:34:44PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
> > > > I don't think so. You can call it an ABI bug if you want.
> > >
> > > Hmm. Anyway, in what way is your patch different from the previous
> > > situation when WEAK_GMON_START was still honored? Isn't it better to just
> > > revert the responsible patches? Why maintain 2 files if one was enough
> > > before?
> >
> > The difference is if you do nothing, you will get the clean code. If
> > you want the binary compatibility, you can use the old one.
> 
> What if I want both the clean code and backwards compatibility? Go with my 
> suggested solution? I tested that (one minor mod) with my testcase and it 
> works fine. It depends on the fact that space is allocated for __gmon_start__ 
> and initialized to 0. The first 2 words maybe touched by relocation, but 
> starting with the 3rd word it stays at 0, which is an illegal opcode for PPC 
> and thus no valid __gmon_start__ routine is there.

If you are referring to

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2000-10/msg00121.html

I am not sure if it is 100% ok. If you think it is 100% safe on PPC,
I have no problem. BTW, does it work with lazy and now binding?


H.J.