[Bug gcov-profile/93623] No need to dump gcdas when forking

2020-06-03 Thread cdenizet at mozilla dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623 --- Comment #11 from calixte --- Why did you remove __gcov_flush ? FYI, we use it in Firefox to dump counters on SIGUSR1: https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/tools/code-coverage/CodeCoverageHandler.cpp#49

[Bug gcov-profile/93623] No need to dump gcdas when forking

2020-02-21 Thread cdenizet at mozilla dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623 --- Comment #6 from calixte --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #5) > (In reply to calixte from comment #2) > > I think the reset is useless in the case of exec** functions since the > > counters are lost when an exec** is called. So

[Bug gcov-profile/93623] No need to dump gcdas when forking

2020-02-21 Thread cdenizet at mozilla dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623 --- Comment #3 from calixte --- And about fork, no need to lock when resetting in the child process since we've only one thread.

[Bug gcov-profile/93623] No need to dump gcdas when forking

2020-02-21 Thread cdenizet at mozilla dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93623 --- Comment #2 from calixte --- I think the reset is useless in the case of exec** functions since the counters are lost when an exec** is called. So it can probably be removed too.

[Bug gcov-profile/93623] New: No need to dump gcdas when forking

2020-02-07 Thread cdenizet at mozilla dot com
-profile Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: cdenizet at mozilla dot com CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- In order to have accurate counters, gcdas are dumped before a fork and counters are reset. I think the dump is pretty useless: we

[Bug gcov-profile/87442] Add options to filter files we want to instrument for code coverage

2018-11-07 Thread cdenizet at mozilla dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87442 --- Comment #9 from calixte --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8) > Ok, I've got a patch prototype and I hope I'll be able to sent it before > the end of this stage1. > > > The idea is to add two options to easily include/exclude some f

[Bug gcov-profile/87442] Add options to filter files we want to instrument for code coverage

2018-10-18 Thread cdenizet at mozilla dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87442 --- Comment #6 from calixte --- from IRC: calixte: I think -fprofile-filter-files -fprofile-exclude-files as Martin proposes looks OK to me.

[Bug gcov-profile/87442] Add options to filter files we want to instrument for code coverage

2018-10-02 Thread cdenizet at mozilla dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87442 --- Comment #5 from calixte --- @martin, @honza: about option names, do we have an agreement on -fprofile-filter-files and -fprofile-exclude-files ?

[Bug gcov-profile/87442] Add options to filter files we want to instrument for code coverage

2018-09-26 Thread cdenizet at mozilla dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87442 calixte changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mcastelluccio at mozilla dot com,

[Bug gcov-profile/87442] New: Add options to filter files we want to instrument for code coverage

2018-09-26 Thread cdenizet at mozilla dot com
Priority: P3 Component: gcov-profile Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: cdenizet at mozilla dot com CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The idea is to add two options to easily include/exclude some files from