* [Bug c++/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement
2003-08-27 9:34 [Bug c++/12076] New: gcov misreports coverage of return statement r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
@ 2003-08-27 14:05 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2003-11-28 8:02 ` [Bug other/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement (for inline functions) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2003-08-27 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12076
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2003-08-27 14:05:00
date| |
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2003-08-27 14:04 -------
Confirmed up to present mainline.
W.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement (for inline functions)
2003-08-27 9:34 [Bug c++/12076] New: gcov misreports coverage of return statement r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
2003-08-27 14:05 ` [Bug c++/12076] " bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2003-11-28 8:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-11-28 9:11 ` r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-11-28 8:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-28 08:02 -------
The problem at -O3, gcc inlines more functions and in this case repeat is inlined so the
return is misreported because really is not executed at all (it is a no-op). I going to say
this is a non-bug because it really is not executed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
Summary|gcov misreports coverage of |gcov misreports coverage of
|return statement |return statement (for inline
| |functions)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12076
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement (for inline functions)
2003-08-27 9:34 [Bug c++/12076] New: gcov misreports coverage of return statement r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
2003-08-27 14:05 ` [Bug c++/12076] " bangerth at dealii dot org
2003-11-28 8:02 ` [Bug other/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement (for inline functions) pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-11-28 9:11 ` r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
2003-11-28 17:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com @ 2003-11-28 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com 2003-11-28 09:11 -------
But the problem also occurs when using -O0 (no optimization). Here is how I
compiled:
[tanis@icotanis new]$ g++ -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage -O0 covtest.cc
With -O0, the compiler should not inline, should it?
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID |
Version|3.2.2 |3.2.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12076
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement (for inline functions)
2003-08-27 9:34 [Bug c++/12076] New: gcov misreports coverage of return statement r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-11-28 9:11 ` r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
@ 2003-11-28 17:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-01 6:27 ` r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-11-28 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-28 17:47 -------
I can confirm this at -O0 but it works correctly at -O1.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12076
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement (for inline functions)
2003-08-27 9:34 [Bug c++/12076] New: gcov misreports coverage of return statement r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-11-28 17:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-01 6:27 ` r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
2003-12-01 6:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com @ 2003-12-01 6:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com 2003-12-01 06:27 -------
Which version did you use? With this version:
[tanis@icotanis new]$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-20)
-O1 is no different.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12076
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement (for inline functions)
2003-08-27 9:34 [Bug c++/12076] New: gcov misreports coverage of return statement r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-01 6:27 ` r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
@ 2003-12-01 6:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-26 23:11 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-01 6:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-01 06:33 -------
The mainline (3.4 20031108).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12076
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement (for inline functions)
2003-08-27 9:34 [Bug c++/12076] New: gcov misreports coverage of return statement r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-01 6:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-26 23:11 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-21 21:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-26 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-26 23:01 -------
Very much related to bug 11773.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12076
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement (for inline functions)
2003-08-27 9:34 [Bug c++/12076] New: gcov misreports coverage of return statement r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-26 23:11 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-21 21:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-13 0:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-21 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-20 20:23 -------
Actually this has to do with deconstrutors so I do not think this is a bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12076
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement (for inline functions)
2003-08-27 9:34 [Bug c++/12076] New: gcov misreports coverage of return statement r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-21 21:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-08-13 0:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-25 1:52 ` [Bug c++/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement [NVR] pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-25 21:04 ` jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-08-13 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-13 00:04 -------
I know what the bug is really, it has to do with NVR optimization in GCC which allows the return value
to at the same location as result.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12076
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement [NVR]
2003-08-27 9:34 [Bug c++/12076] New: gcov misreports coverage of return statement r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-08-13 0:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-25 1:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-25 21:04 ` jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-25 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-25 01:43 -------
*** Bug 23052 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12076
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement [NVR]
2003-08-27 9:34 [Bug c++/12076] New: gcov misreports coverage of return statement r dot lichtenberger at icoserve dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-25 1:52 ` [Bug c++/12076] gcov misreports coverage of return statement [NVR] pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-25 21:04 ` jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-25 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From jbuck at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-25 20:54 -------
It's OK if NVR uses the same location and emits no code, and if coverage
information reflects this. The problem is that part of the coverage machinery
appears to "think" that there is unreached code on the line with the return
statement, so a "#####" is output rather than a "-". Emitting a "-" rather
than a count would also be OK, and arguably correct if there is no real object
code corresponding to the source line.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12076
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread