From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id A3CB93858D37; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:28:13 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A3CB93858D37 From: "esgergn at hotmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug gcov-profile/105238] Regression: using -fprofile-dir: gcno files not ccache cachable anymore / gcovr report broken Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:28:13 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: gcov-profile X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.4.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: esgergn at hotmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:28:13 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105238 --- Comment #2 from Esger Abbink --- There certainly is overlap yes, in particular: "(a) build directory relative paths were stored as the .gcda paths (/a/b/c/master/path/to/file.gcda becomes path/to/file.gcda)" from https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105063#c8 is exactly wh= at we want (without mangling). Where the build directory would then be /home/esger/src/application in the situation described above. I am happy to test the patch, but not quite sure how to proceed. -fprofile-prefix-map is not a valid option for gcc 9 or 10 as far as I can tell. To which gcc version/branch should I apply the patch? (the other issue mentions a 10.3.x branch, but a clone of the git gcc source does not seem to have such a branch?)=