(In reply to Dan Robertson (:dlrobertson) from comment #4) > (In reply to Razvan Cojocaru from comment #3) > > Got it, thanks! Do we prefer `fopen()` to `std::fstream` (as per [here](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/tools/profiler/core/PowerCounters-linux.cpp#164))? > > Great question! It seems that we do use `fstream` elsewhere in `tools/profiler/core`. Whatever you're most comfortable with will work. I totally forgot about `std::fstream` in the initial implementation, and I probably should have used it... Old habits are hard to kick :p Thanks for the quick reply! I have no problem with either approach, was just curious. :) I just thought maybe that binary wasn't meant to link with libstdc++ or something of that sort maybe. I'll cook up a patch in the next couple of days.
Bug 1794941 Comment 5 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Dan Robertson (:dlrobertson) from comment #4) > (In reply to Razvan Cojocaru from comment #3) > > Got it, thanks! Do we prefer `fopen()` to `std::fstream` (as per [here](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/tools/profiler/core/PowerCounters-linux.cpp#164))? > > Great question! It seems that we do use `fstream` elsewhere in `tools/profiler/core`. Whatever you're most comfortable with will work. I totally forgot about `std::fstream` in the initial implementation, and I probably should have used it... Old habits are hard to kick :p Thanks for the quick reply! I have no problem with either approach, was just curious. :) I just thought maybe that binary wasn't meant to link with libstdc++ or something of that sort. I'll cook up a patch in the next couple of days.