http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58602
--- Comment #2 from Greg Banks <gbanks at sgi dot com> --- Created attachment 31085 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31085&action=edit source for test case Here's a test case which doesn't rely on optimisation behaviour to demonstrate the bug. me@machine 2603> gcc --coverage -c foo.c me@machine 2604> ls -l foo.gcno -rw-rw-r-- 1 gnb gnb 420 Oct 23 22:18 foo.gcno ^^^ me@machine 2605> gcc --coverage -DMAKE_ME_SMALLER -c foo.c me@machine 2606> ls -l foo.gcno -rw-rw-r-- 1 gnb gnb 420 Oct 23 22:19 foo.gcno ^^^ # new file is incorrectly not smaller me@machine 2607> rm foo.gcno me@machine 2608> gcc --coverage -DMAKE_ME_SMALLER -c foo.c me@machine 2609> ls -l foo.gcno -rw-rw-r-- 1 gnb gnb 216 Oct 23 22:19 foo.gcno ^^^ # this is the real size of the new file
