ludo-mXXj517/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> +COVERAGE_CCOPTS ?= "-g -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage"
>
> Looks to me that `--coverage' is more appropriate as it adds all `-f'
> options that are needed, so it's potentially more "future-proof".
>
> Also, LDFLAGS must be modified to do either `-lgcov' or, again,
> `--coverage'.
Hi Ludovic. Thanks, I pushed this patch. Adding anything to LDFLAGS
doesn't seem to be required though?
Btw, it is better/worse to compile with -O2? It may be better for
profiling optimizations, but the use-case here is to generate code
coverage reports for the self tests. So I would assume -O2 is harmful
here. Whether -g is useful or not is another question.
/Simon
>From dfb03f6cae852d6d9bfc7e986b942d0b81e06dff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:20:18 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] maint.mk: Use --coverage.
---
ChangeLog | 6 ++++++
top/maint.mk | 2 +-
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index fa7493c..6a42c87 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2008-11-03 Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+
+ * top/maint.mk (COVERAGE_CCOPTS): Use --coverage instead of
+ -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage. Suggested by Ludovic Courtès
+ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
+
2008-11-02 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mark 'strpbrk' obsolete.
diff --git a/top/maint.mk b/top/maint.mk
index 2eea98d..62f3a41 100644
--- a/top/maint.mk
+++ b/top/maint.mk
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ init-coverage:
make clean
lcov --directory . --zerocounters
-COVERAGE_CCOPTS ?= "-g -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage"
+COVERAGE_CCOPTS ?= "-g --coverage"
COVERAGE_OUT ?= doc/coverage
build-coverage:
--
1.5.6.5
