http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-04 10:18:18 UTC ---
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890
>
> --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2011-10-04 10:04:37
> UTC ---
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2011-10-04 10:04:37 UTC
---
> Where do we do it right now? At profile instrumentation stage, right?
> I'd say if we don't need SSA form we should do coverage instrumentation
> right after CFG construction, no? Be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-04 09:50:55 UTC ---
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2011-10-04 09:18:56
> UTC ---
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2011-10-04 09:18:56 UTC
---
> > gcc --coverage -O2 -fno-early-inlining foo.c
> > ./a.out
> > gcov -b foo.c
> >
> > Adding the following patch mitigates the issue.
>
> That's surely not the way to go. Why do you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-04 09:14:42 UTC ---
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011, singhai at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890
>
> --- Comment #2 from Sharad Singhai 2011-10-01
> 19:42:48 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890
--- Comment #2 from Sharad Singhai 2011-10-01
19:42:48 UTC ---
I don't know if it is related. But the coverage is imprecise in case of
attached source file foo.c. Build it with O2, as
gcc --coverage -O2 foo.c
./a.out
gcov -b foo.c
Now the cove
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890
--- Comment #1 from Sharad Singhai 2011-10-01
19:39:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 25392
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25392
tar of source and coverage files
