public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug gcov-profile/85351] [GCOV] Wrong coverage with exit() executed in a if statement within a called function
[not found] <bug-85351-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2020-03-12 11:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-17 4:20 ` i at maskray dot me
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-12 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85351
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9.3.0 has been released, adjusting target milestone.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug gcov-profile/85351] [GCOV] Wrong coverage with exit() executed in a if statement within a called function
[not found] <bug-85351-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-03-12 11:58 ` [Bug gcov-profile/85351] [GCOV] Wrong coverage with exit() executed in a if statement within a called function jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-09-17 4:20 ` i at maskray dot me
2021-05-04 12:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: i at maskray dot me @ 2020-09-17 4:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85351
Fangrui Song <i at maskray dot me> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |i at maskray dot me
--- Comment #5 from Fangrui Song <i at maskray dot me> ---
I am a bit curious how GCC instruments such functions which may alter control
flows
* exit/execve/execl/etc
* fork
* functions which may throw or call any above functions
If you force a split basic block after such functions, you get counts correct
but you pay the costs that there is one more basic block and two more arcs. In
-fprofile-arcs you need to pay the instrumentation cost of one arc (after
taking into account of the Kirchhoff circuit law's spanning tree optimization).
If you assume every external function call may alter control flows, you pay
rather large overhead for things you probably care little (since I know some
underlying mechanism I don't trust line counts after special functions).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug gcov-profile/85351] [GCOV] Wrong coverage with exit() executed in a if statement within a called function
[not found] <bug-85351-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-03-12 11:58 ` [Bug gcov-profile/85351] [GCOV] Wrong coverage with exit() executed in a if statement within a called function jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-17 4:20 ` i at maskray dot me
@ 2021-05-04 12:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-01 8:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27 8:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-05-04 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85351
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug gcov-profile/85351] [GCOV] Wrong coverage with exit() executed in a if statement within a called function
[not found] <bug-85351-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-05-04 12:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-01 8:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27 8:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-01 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85351
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug gcov-profile/85351] [GCOV] Wrong coverage with exit() executed in a if statement within a called function
[not found] <bug-85351-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-01 8:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-27 8:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-27 8:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85351
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|9.5 |---
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-05-27 8:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-85351-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-03-12 11:58 ` [Bug gcov-profile/85351] [GCOV] Wrong coverage with exit() executed in a if statement within a called function jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-17 4:20 ` i at maskray dot me
2021-05-04 12:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-01 8:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27 8:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).