From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id C1922385BAE2; Mon,  4 Jul 2022 12:15:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C1922385BAE2
From: "njuwy at smail dot nju.edu.cn" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug gcov-profile/106090] [GCOV] Wrong coverage for loop statements
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 12:15:16 +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: 10.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: njuwy at smail dot nju.edu.cn
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
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: <bug-106090-4-oA1rSMNd84@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106090-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106090-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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 <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 12:15:18 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106090

--- Comment #5 from Yang Wang <njuwy at smail dot nju.edu.cn> ---
(In reply to Martin Li=C5=A1ka from comment #4)
> > do_it() is indeed called 4 times,but I wonder how the coverage statisti=
scs
> > of the for-statement is calculated. It doesn't become 5 untill the
> > for-stamentment is completed.
>=20
> We count a line every time there exists a jump from a different line that
> jumps to the line.
> Thus for `for(;;)` there are no statements we should jump to.

Thanks for your reply, I have figured it out. "0<1" is used as a conditional
judgment of permanent true, and its execution is optimized away.=20
I also find that two previously reported issues(#100980,#101618) have
disappeared in the new version.Could you mind doing me a favor to take a lo=
ok
if you have a minute?=