From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8408 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2004 13:02:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8400 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 13:02:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www.icoserve.com) (213.133.101.71) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Sep 2004 13:02:42 -0000 To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Subject: gcov + inline function definitions in headers MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: From: p.steiner@icoserve.com Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:02:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 hello, are there known problems with inline source code definitions in header files and gcov? as soon as functions are defined inline in an header file, e.g. template classes or inlined instance methods, gcov is showing not working correctly. could it be that these get optimized out in the template preprocessing step or the final linking? example compilation step: > g++323 -c -o Coverage.o -pipe -W -Wall -ftemplate-depth-500 -g -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage -fPIC Coverage.cpp there are no optimizations on this gcc call... could optimizations happen implicitely, or after compilation in the linker? thanks for any help, peter steiner.