From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Jason Molenda <jason-swarelist@molenda.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Tom Tromey <tromey@cygnus.com>
Subject: Re: [RFA] patch to add 'maint profile-gdb' command
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 11:28:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B9FA958.6010607@cygnus.com>
References: <20010910003022.A21681@shell17.ba.best.com> <3B9CE0C6.5060700@cygnus.com> <20010910115244.A25119@shell17.ba.best.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00165.html

>  i think the command should always be present.  looking at the patch, it 
>> appears to have started out that way.
> 
> 
> I'd disagree.  First, these functions are not very portable.  Our
> very own RH 6.2 box that is sourceware.cygnus.com does not have
> moncontrol() or monstart(), and -pg doesn't seem to be usable at
> all.  My RH 7.1 box at home works fine.  MacOS X's FreeBSD works
> fine.  Second, you definitely don't want to compile gdb with -pg
> by default - the compiler inserts a bunch of bookkeeping code and
> functions, and that'll be a real performance penalty.

while the command is always present it wouldn't do much by default.  the 
function that implements the command throws an error.

is that making more sense?

> are you sure no changes to maint.exp are needed? not needing them feels 
>> wrong.
> 
> 
> The "help maint" test in maint.exp globs it up.  You don't want to include
> a check for maint profile-gdb in here because you'd get a FAIL when gdb
> was not configured --enable-profiling.

or to turn it around, will an --enable-profiling gdb have additional 
failures?  i don't think that enabling profiling should affect the test 
results.

andrew