Problem creating profiled Root

ROOT
#1

Dear experts,

I tried to compile Root 5.10.00f with profile support on a SL3 box with gcc 3.2.3. In
config/Makefile.linux I added som '-pg’s, started make and got this error:

utils/src/rootcint_tmp.o(.text+0x542): In function R__tmpnam()': : the use oftmpnam’ is dangerous, better use `mkstemp’
Generating dictionary proofx/src/G__Proofx.cxx…
utils/src/rootcint_tmp -cint -f proofx/src/G__Proofx.cxx -c -Iproofx/inc -I…/xrootd-v20051210-0914/src -Iproofd/inc proofx/inc/TXProofMgr.h proofx/inc/TXProofServ.h proofx/inc/TXSlave.h proofx/inc/TXSocket.h proofx/inc/TXSocketHandler.h
proofx/inc/TXUnixSocket.h proofx/inc/LinkDef.h
gmake: *** [proofx/src/G__Proofx.cxx] Segmentation fault

Does anybody know this error, and is there workaround?

Thanks,
Matthias

#2

Hi,
sounds almost irrelevant, but it works for me on SLC4, GCC 3.4.6, and current CVS. Any one of those might already do it :slight_smile:
Cheers, Axel.

#3

Hi Axel,

but 5.10.00f with gcc 3.2.3 on SL3 is the configuration which we use in BaBar data production.

Matthias

[quote=“Axel”]Hi,
sounds almost irrelevant, but it works for me on SLC4, GCC 3.4.6, and current CVS. Any one of those might already do it :slight_smile:
Cheers, Axel.[/quote]

#4

Hi,
it sounds like a GCC bug that was either fixed later, or is not triggered with later versions of ROOT. As you have to stick to those try removing the -pg from the CINTC(XX)FLAGS, make clean-cint && make.
Cheers, Axel.

#5

Hi Alex,

that was not sufficient, but things work if I “make” the utils before I add the '-pg’s in
Makefile.linux. rootcint_tmp does not work if it was compiled with profile support.

Let’s see now how much time in the BaBar code gets eaten up by Root.

Thanks,
Matthias

[quote=“Axel”]Hi,
it sounds like a GCC bug that was either fixed later, or is not triggered with later versions of ROOT. As you have to stick to those try removing the -pg from the CINTC(XX)FLAGS, make clean-cint && make.
Cheers, Axel.[/quote]

#6

Hi,
why don’t you use kcachegrind? IMHO it’s a lot nicer to use, and it doesn’t require a re-build of the code.
Axel.

#7

Hi Axel,

we started to use cachegrind these days, but people in BaBar want to have gprof as
a second option.

Matthias

[quote=“Axel”]Hi,
why don’t you use kcachegrind? IMHO it’s a lot nicer to use, and it doesn’t require a re-build of the code.
Axel.[/quote]