More info on sudden problem

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Christopher R Volpe (volpe++at++ash.crd.ge.com)
Tue, 07 Jan 1997 20:10:56 -0500


Regarding my aforementioned X/Perf problem:

Jeremy Friesner suggested that the problem may be linked to executable
size. This appears to be the case. If I comment out a bunch of code in a
routine that doesn't get called (at least not till long after the
pfInit()), I can eliminate the startup problem. In fact, I can narrow it
down to the presence or absence of something as small as a return
statement. Not a specific return statement, though. Any of a number of
them have this property. The common denominator seems to be the
following: Whenever the executable is less then around 147K, it works.
Whever it is greater than around 151K, it dies in pfInit(). The presence
of a single return statement in a routine can cause the executable size
to jump by that amount.

I am building a 64-bit executable, BTW.

-Chris

--

Chris Volpe Phone: (518) 387-7766 GE Corporate R&D Fax: (518) 387-6560 PO Box 8 Email: volpecr++at++crd.ge.com Schenectady, NY 12301 Web: http://www.crd.ge.com/~volpecr ======================================================================= List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/ Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:54:17 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.