On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 03/14/2017 11:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/14/2017 10:12 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 03/14/2017 09:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 03/13/2017 04:16 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 03/13/2017 02:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 03/13/2017 02:01 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As briefly discussed in the PR, there are BB that do not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to a real
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> line in source
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> code. profile.c emits locations for all BBs that have a gimple
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> belonging to a line.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope these should be marked in gcov utility and not added in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --all-block
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mode to counts of lines.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Patch survives make check RUNTESTFLAGS="gcov.exp".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for review and feedback.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Humm, the patch doesn't seem to change the BBs associated with a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> line
> >>>>>>>>>>>> but rather somehow changes how we compute counts (the patch
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lacks a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> description of how you arrived at it). I expected the line-to-BB
> >>>>>>>>>>>> assignment process to be changed (whereever that is...).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Currently, each basic block must belong to a source line. It's how
> >>>>>>>>>> gcov
> >>>>>>>>>> iterates all blocks (via lines).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ah, ok, looking at where output_location is called on I see we do
> >>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>> assign any line to that block. But still why does
> >>>>>>>>>>> line->has_block (arc->src) return true?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Good objection! Problematic that 4->5 edge really comes from the
> >>>>>>>>>> same line.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> <bb 4> [0.00%]:
> >>>>>>>>>> ret_7 = 111;
> >>>>>>>>>> PROF_edge_counter_10 = __gcov0.UuT[0];
> >>>>>>>>>> PROF_edge_counter_11 = PROF_edge_counter_10 + 1;
> >>>>>>>>>> __gcov0.UuT[0] = PROF_edge_counter_11;
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> <bb 5> [0.00%]:
> >>>>>>>>>> # ret_1 = PHI <ret_5(3), ret_7(4)>
> >>>>>>>>>> goto <bb 7>; [0.00%]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, but that's basically meaningless, unless not all edges come
> >>>>>>>>> from the
> >>>>>>>>> same line? I see nowhere where we'd explicitely assign lines to
> >>>>>>>>> edges so it must be gcov "reconstructing" this somewhere.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's why I added the another flag. We stream locations for basic
> >>>>>>>> blocks via
> >>>>>>>> 'output_location' function. And assignment blocks to lines happens
> >>>>>>>> here:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> static void
> >>>>>>>> add_line_counts (coverage_t *coverage, function_t *fn)
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> if (!ix || ix + 1 == fn->num_blocks)
> >>>>>>>> /* Entry or exit block */;
> >>>>>>>> else if (flag_all_blocks)
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> line_t *block_line = line;
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> if (!block_line)
> >>>>>>>> block_line = &sources[fn->src].lines[fn->line];
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> block->chain = block_line->u.blocks;
> >>>>>>>> block_line->u.blocks = block;
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> where line is always changes when we reach a BB that has a source
> >>>>>>>> line assigned. Thus it's changed
> >>>>>>>> for BB 4 and that's why BB 5 is added to same line.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ah, so this means we should "clear" the current line for BB 5 in
> >>>>>>> output_location? At least I don't see how your patch may not regress
> >>>>>>> some cases where the line wasn't output as an optimization?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The new flag on block is kind of clearing that the BB is artificial
> >>>>>> and in fact does not
> >>>>>> belong to the line. I didn't want to do a bigger refactoring how
> >>>>>> blocks are iterated via lines.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can you be please more specific about such a case?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> in profile.c I see
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if (name_differs || line_differs)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> if (!*offset)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> *offset = gcov_write_tag (GCOV_TAG_LINES);
> >>>>> gcov_write_unsigned (bb->index);
> >>>>> name_differs = line_differs=true;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> so if line_differs is false we might not output GCOV_TAG_LINES either
> >>>>> because 1) optimization, less stuff output, 2) the block has no line.
> >>>>> Looks like we can't really distinguish those.
> >>>>
> >>>> Agree with that.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not sure how on the input side we end up associating a BB with
> >>>>> a line if nothing was output for it though.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is, with your change don't we need
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Index: gcc/profile.c
> >>>>> ===================================================================
> >>>>> --- gcc/profile.c (revision 246082)
> >>>>> +++ gcc/profile.c (working copy)
> >>>>> @@ -941,8 +941,6 @@ output_location (char const *file_name,
> >>>>> name_differs = !prev_file_name || filename_cmp (file_name,
> >>>>> prev_file_name);
> >>>>> line_differs = prev_line != line;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - if (name_differs || line_differs)
> >>>>> - {
> >>>>> if (!*offset)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> *offset = gcov_write_tag (GCOV_TAG_LINES);
> >>>>> @@ -950,6 +948,9 @@ output_location (char const *file_name,
> >>>>> name_differs = line_differs=true;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + if (name_differs || line_differs)
> >>>>> + {
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> /* If this is a new source file, then output the
> >>>>> file's name to the .bb file. */
> >>>>> if (name_differs)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> to resolve this ambiguity? That is, _always_ emit GCOV_TAG_LINES
> >>>>> for a BB? So then a BB w/o GCOV_TAG_LINES does _not_ have any
> >>>>> lines associated.
> >>>>
> >>>> That should revolve it. Let me find and example where we do not emit
> >>>> GCOV_TAG_LINES jsut because there's not difference in lines.
> >>>
> >>> sth like
> >>>
> >>> a = b < 1 ? (c < 3 ? d : c);
> >>>
> >>> or even
> >>>
> >>> if (..) { ... } else { ... }
> >>
> >> These samples work, however your patch would break situations like:
> >>
> >> 1: 10:int main ()
> >> -: 11:{
> >> -: 12: int i;
> >> -: 13:
> >> 22: 14: for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) /* count(11) */
> >> 10: 15: noop (); /* count(10) */
> >>
> >> where 22 is summed as (1+10+11), which kind of makes sense as it contains
> >> of 3 statements.
> >
> > 22 is with my patch or without? I think 22 makes no sense.
> >
> > Richard.
>
> With your patch.
I see. As said, I have zero (well, now some little ;)) knowledge
about gcov.
Richard.
> Martin
>
> >
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Martin
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Richard.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hope Nathan will find time to provide review as he's familiar with
> >>>>>> content of gcov.c.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OTOH I don't know much about gcov format.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Richard.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Richard.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Richard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
21284 (AG Nuernberg)
