Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] gcov: add support for gcc 4.7 gcov format

[Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 19.09.2013 12:21, Frantisek Hrbata wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:04:16AM +0200, Peter Oberparleiter wrote:
>> On 04.09.2013 16:42, Frantisek Hrbata wrote:
>>> The gcov in-memory format changed in gcc 4.7. The biggest change, which
>>> requires this special implementation, is that gcov_info no longer contains
>>> array of counters for each counter type for all functions and gcov_fn_info is
>>> not used for mapping of function's counters to these arrays(offset). Now each
>>> gcov_fn_info contans it's counters, which makes things a little bit easier.
>>>
>>> This is heavily based on the previous gcc_3_4.c implementation and patches
>>> provided by Peter Oberparleiter. Specially the buffer gcda implementation for
>>> iterator.
>>>
>>> v2: - removed const definition for gcov_fn_info in gcov_info
>>>     - use vmalloc for counter values in gcov_info_dup
>>>     - use iter buffer for gcda
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Frantisek Hrbata <fhrbata@redhat.com>
>>
>> The patch is missing an include statement:
>>
>>   CC      kernel/gcov/gcc_4_7.o
>> kernel/gcov/gcc_4_7.c: In function ‘gcov_info_dup’:
>> kernel/gcov/gcc_4_7.c:293:4: error: implicit declaration of function ‘vmalloc’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>> kernel/gcov/gcc_4_7.c:293:20: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast [enabled by default]
>>
>> With that added, it compiles and works with gcc 4.3.4 and 4.7.2 on
>> kernel 3.21-rc1 on s390x.
>>
>> --- a/kernel/gcov/gcc_4_7.c
>> +++ b/kernel/gcov/gcc_4_7.c
>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/slab.h>
>>  #include <linux/string.h>
>>  #include <linux/seq_file.h>
>> +#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
>>  #include "gcov.h"
>>
>>  #define GCOV_COUNTERS			8
>>
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> I'm sorry I missed that. Many thanks. In addition, do you have any other
> objedtions to the code? Andrew already added the patches to the -mm tree.
> Andrew, should I post a follow up patch adding the vmalloc.h include or is it
> possible to fix it directly as you did for the previous patches? 
> Again I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

With the fix applied I have no further objections.

Reviewed-by: Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks!

-- 
Peter Oberparleiter
Linux on System z Development - IBM Germany