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 24CF53857C7B; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 02:13:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 24CF53857C7B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1597457625;
 bh=pViTO8J4OqVaoWGFOhmqSSOqumNK9H4cVbD/asyJKUA=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=JiSqSEre359LOrgMaHyIiLBMYrxAwo0IGDGH8BSZ6cFz+5gygZXLCjgAhjXweOt0y
 V1cXdzHongqXHf9cs+MT/E8JfM6L6zFdPSbz1ER6A4tRx1UYz2AJP5L0BbqVq1fNgo
 yKPIZ3kFPTJF3ZzWJkSyPh9MBHmG7sAExSlH2FAE=
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: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 02:13:45 +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: UNCONFIRMED
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-96622-4-vsl4ybkIwi@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: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 02:13:45 -0000

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

--- Comment #1 from Roland Illig <roland.illig at gmx dot de> ---
In my own code coverage measurer for Go programs, I took the approach of
creating a coverage counter for every true and false branch of a boolean
condition.

https://github.com/rillig/gobco/blob/6be01424/instrumenter.go#L126

I had expected gcov to work in the same way, but it seems to me that gcov t=
akes
a different approach.

Or is it that the break statement is converted to a direct jump too early t=
o be
seen by the --coverage option, discarding the basic block for it?  That rem=
inds
me of what I consider a bug in the OpenJDK Java compiler (as well as the
Eclipse Java compiler):

https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/2020-February/014290.h=
tml=