This is the mail archive of the cygwin-patches mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi Jin-woo,Yes, I see.
On Aug 20 06:59, jojelino wrote:On 2011-08-20 AM 6:48, jojelino wrote:cd i686-pc-cygwin/winsup/cygwin;rm *.o;make profile=1
it would work.Please ignore attachment from 6:48, i have mistaken by attaching invalid winsup-profile-support.diff
So i am replying.
Yes, but to the wrong list ;-)
Would you mind to resend your patches as a reply to your original threada on the cygwin-patches list? That's where the official patch submissions are suppsoed to go.
Btw., you don't have to attach the ChangeLog. For the lazy reader it's easier if the ChangeLog is just inline in your mail. If you want to avoid more spam, just omit your email address from the ChangeLog date/name/email header.
Yes, I need to spend more time.
But there's something I don't grok in your patch:
In dll_crt0_0:Yes i was supposed to do that. thanks for pointing it out.
+ _monstartup();
but
+#ifdef PROFILE + atexit (&_mcleanup); +#endif
Shouldn't the call to _monstartup also be guarded with #ifdef PROFILE? Same question for calls to profile_thread_off and any other profiling code in other places.
In gcrt0.c:No, it's not typo. it is assumed that PROFILE is defined iff make is invoked with profile=1, and when PROFILE defined, the patch need to have different invocation of _monstartup. the only reason doing this is that the patch make use of sec_none_nih on profile_on.
+#ifndef PROFILE void _monstartup (void) __attribute__((__constructor__)); - +#endif
#if*n*def? Is that a typo?
Attachment:
winsup-profile-support-2.diff
Description: Text document
Attachment:
winsup-makefile.diff
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |