diff -r 000000000000 -r eeea35fbf182 patches/gcc/4.0.2/pr20815-fix.patch
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/patches/gcc/4.0.2/pr20815-fix.patch	Sat Feb 24 11:00:05 2007 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+Date: 18 May 2005 22:47:59 -0000
+Message-ID: <20050518224759.7352.qmail@sourceware.org>
+From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
+To: dank@kegel.com
+References: <20050407215701.20815.dank@kegel.com>
+Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
+Subject: [Bug gcov/profile/20815] -fprofile-use barfs with "coverage mismatch for function '...' while reading counter 'arcs'."
+
+
+------- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz  2005-05-18 22:47 -------
+Subject: Re: [Bug gcov/profile/20815] -fprofile-use barfs with "coverage mismatch for function '...' while reading counter 'arcs'."
+
+> 
+> ------- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz  2005-05-18 22:22 -------
+> Subject: Re: [Bug gcov/profile/20815] -fprofile-use barfs with "coverage mismatch for function '...' while reading counter 'arcs'."
+> 
+> coverage_checksum_string already knows a bit about ignoring random seed
+> produced mess.  It looks like this needs to be extended somehow to
+> handle namespaces too...
+
+This seems to solve the missmatch.  Would it be possible to test it on
+bigger testcase and if it works distile a testcase that don't use
+file IO so it is more suitable for gcc regtesting?
+
+Index: coverage.c
+===================================================================
+RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/coverage.c,v
+retrieving revision 1.6.2.12.2.12
+diff -c -3 -p -r1.6.2.12.2.12 coverage.c
+*** gcc-old/gcc/coverage.c	18 May 2005 07:37:31 -0000	1.6.2.12.2.12
+--- gcc/gcc/coverage.c	18 May 2005 22:45:36 -0000
+*************** coverage_checksum_string (unsigned chksu
+*** 471,505 ****
+       as the checksums are used only for sanity checking.  */
+    for (i = 0; string[i]; i++)
+      {
+        if (!strncmp (string + i, "_GLOBAL__", 9))
+! 	for (i = i + 9; string[i]; i++)
+! 	  if (string[i]=='_')
+! 	    {
+! 	      int y;
+! 	      unsigned seed;
+! 	      int scan;
+! 
+! 	      for (y = 1; y < 9; y++)
+! 		if (!(string[i + y] >= '0' && string[i + y] <= '9')
+! 		    && !(string[i + y] >= 'A' && string[i + y] <= 'F'))
+! 		  break;
+! 	      if (y != 9 || string[i + 9] != '_')
+! 		continue;
+! 	      for (y = 10; y < 18; y++)
+! 		if (!(string[i + y] >= '0' && string[i + y] <= '9')
+! 		    && !(string[i + y] >= 'A' && string[i + y] <= 'F'))
+! 		  break;
+! 	      if (y != 18)
+! 		continue;
+! 	      scan = sscanf (string + i + 10, "%X", &seed);
+! 	      gcc_assert (scan);
+! 	      if (seed != crc32_string (0, flag_random_seed))
+! 		continue;
+! 	      string = dup = xstrdup (string);
+! 	      for (y = 10; y < 18; y++)
+! 		dup[i + y] = '0';
+! 	      break;
+! 	    }
+        break;
+      }
+  
+--- 471,511 ----
+       as the checksums are used only for sanity checking.  */
+    for (i = 0; string[i]; i++)
+      {
++       int offset = 0;
++       if (!strncmp (string + i, "_GLOBAL__N_", 11))
++ 	offset = 11;
+        if (!strncmp (string + i, "_GLOBAL__", 9))
+! 	offset = 9;
+! 
+!       /* C++ namespaces do have scheme:
+!          _GLOBAL__N_<filename>_<wrongmagicnumber>_<magicnumber>functionname
+! 	 since filename might contain extra underscores there seems
+! 	 to be no better chance then walk all possible offsets looking
+! 	 for magicnuber.  */
+!       if (offset)
+!         for (;string[offset]; offset++)
+! 	  for (i = i + offset; string[i]; i++)
+! 	    if (string[i]=='_')
+! 	      {
+! 		int y;
+! 
+! 		for (y = 1; y < 9; y++)
+! 		  if (!(string[i + y] >= '0' && string[i + y] <= '9')
+! 		      && !(string[i + y] >= 'A' && string[i + y] <= 'F'))
+! 		    break;
+! 		if (y != 9 || string[i + 9] != '_')
+! 		  continue;
+! 		for (y = 10; y < 18; y++)
+! 		  if (!(string[i + y] >= '0' && string[i + y] <= '9')
+! 		      && !(string[i + y] >= 'A' && string[i + y] <= 'F'))
+! 		    break;
+! 		if (y != 18)
+! 		  continue;
+! 		if (!dup)
+! 		  string = dup = xstrdup (string);
+! 		for (y = 10; y < 18; y++)
+! 		  dup[i + y] = '0';
+! 	      }
+        break;
+      }
+  
+
+
+-- 
+
+
+http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20815
+
+------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
+You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
+
+