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 5A21C3858C66; Fri,  2 Jun 2023 14:04:24 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5A21C3858C66
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1685714664;
	bh=PlYYLKhKynS0F7YJINVcOtFqZIEFuAzZmj3WPGFXqls=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=kZFSM32lyvguQR5nj1NxUkT9PWMiuaU+0kp9MnFjgxGiPym/WCCHlUL8trU+DWqir
	 I9X4Y3AIsKMMQhC7qCUXAMkc3riFIddL4nKtYKgVVt5okmWqkokGKmFHIy7nJTbio9
	 yNs37ShScxooKI/Eq1WJ4Z2d+Sp5cH36+kWNC22o=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug gcov-profile/110082] Coverage analysis vs. offloading
 compilation
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2023 14:04:24 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: openacc, openmp, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
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: <bug-110082-4-mcxAk09mdz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110082-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110082-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110082

--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110082
>=20
> --- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > (In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #3)
> > > I suppose you want to apply this generally, not only to offloaded
> > > functions and when offloading is enabled?
> >=20
> > It could be done just for the functions that aren't host only, i.e.
> > the offloading kernels or declare target functions, what the offloading=
 LTO
> > streams out.
>=20
> Indeed my idea has been to apply this abstraction generally, without any
> conditionals on offloading constructs etc.  That's for reasons of
> maintainability: to not add any more diverging code paths, requiring spec=
ial
> testing (now, and for future changes), and to lessen possibility of surpr=
ising
> behavior re the diverging code paths doing different things.  OK?

Yes, I think that's good.=