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 9F848384C007; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:26:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9F848384C007
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1597818370;
 bh=GbeXU+N8+OVGEMhDZrM+OE9+bcXrbTYHkJgmy3qsBaA=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=RzwwnKy7iO/tpmHab02Q9pQ6mHJBWgHOQfa85ikswTP1+ZBxWkC4iZD2Q1Nk8HfRJ
 yyRDYz6GHqe2ELcMV9YlFOKAsREVZYt/ovxSUZSM3ktdgzrXbM7cqDYNjk/li8nBXa
 vjtLEaPRuSGXB2s0bQgPZChR9Vrh9TfRc5G6HjKo=
From: "roland.illig at gmx dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug gcov-profile/96622] gcov misses to count break statement
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:26:10 +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: 10.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: roland.illig at gmx dot de
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-96622-4-pz7wXdtjQS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96622-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96622-4@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: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:26:10 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96622

--- Comment #3 from Roland Illig <roland.illig at gmx dot de> ---
Ah, thanks for the pointer.

I thought I had used -O0 in the larger project as well, but I hadn't.

Just as a suggestion, would it make sense to apply the coverage at the sour=
ce
code level (before any optimizations) instead of optimizing first and then
adding the counters?  It would feel more predictable to me.

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Gcov-Intro.html#Gcov-Intro

At least for the "discover untested parts of your program", that would make
sense to me since in my code, the "break" statement has an effect, independ=
ent
of any optimization level.

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Invoking-Gcov.html#Invoking-Gcov

In this section, the string "tim" occurs often, but only in "number of time=
s",
"each time", but not in "measured wall time".  Therefore I think gcov is mo=
re
about counting that about measuring time.=