On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 11:44:28AM -0700, Adam Litke wrote:
I am working on a patch which requires all .c files to be compiled with
the -pg option. However, there are two specific files for which -pg
must not be used. Below is the current way I am accomplishing this.
Hi Adam.
I have tried to
On Fri, Oct 24, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:07:54PM +0200, Olaf Hering wrote:
Hello,
the 2.6 arch/ppc64/boot/Makefile misses 2 features from 2.4.
Unfortunately, they are not yet part of the main 2.4 tree. I attach the
Makefile for reference.
I cant figure out how
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 01:39:46PM -0400, Aamir Rashid wrote:
How do I get to see the COMPLETE COMPILE LINE which shows me all the
compiler flags, include paths etc.?
make V=1
john
--
Khendon's Law:
If the same point is made twice by the same person, the thread is over.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:07:54PM +0200, Olaf Hering wrote:
Hello,
the 2.6 arch/ppc64/boot/Makefile misses 2 features from 2.4.
Unfortunately, they are not yet part of the main 2.4 tree. I attach the
Makefile for reference.
I cant figure out how to add these 2 things to 2.6.
Which of the
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 11:39, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Any chance the last two files can be compiled with -pg also
with a few changes?
I do not see why debugging info can harm here.
Functions inside files compiled with -pg get instrumented with a call to
the symbol 'mcount' after the prologue. If
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 12:56:55PM -0700, Adam Litke wrote:
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 11:39, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Any chance the last two files can be compiled with -pg also
with a few changes?
I do not see why debugging info can harm here.
Functions inside files compiled with -pg get
