Re: [PATCH 0/2] Condition coverage fixes

["Jørgen Kvalsvik" <j@lambda.is>]

On 06/04/2024 07:50, Richard Biener wrote:
> 
> 
>> Am 05.04.2024 um 21:59 schrieb Jørgen Kvalsvik <j@lambda.is>:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I propose these fixes for the current issues with the condition
>> coverage.
>>
>> Rainer, I propose to simply delete the test with __sigsetjmp. I don't
>> think it actually detects anything reasonable any more, I kept it around
>> to prevent a regression. Since then I have built a lot of programs (with
>> optimization enabled) and not really seen this problem.
>>
>> H.J., the problem you found with -O2 was really a problem of
>> tree-inlining, which was actually caught earlier by Jan [1]. It probably
>> warrants some more testing, but I could reproduce by tuning your test
>> case to use always_inline and not -O2 and trigger the error.
>>
>> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-April/648785.html
> 
> Ok

Thanks, committed.

I am wondering if the fn->cond_uids access should always be guarded (in 
tree-profile.cc) should always be guarded. Right now there is the 
assumption that if condition coverage is requested the will exist and be 
populated, but as this shows there may be other circumstances where this 
is not true.

Or perhaps there should be a gcc_assert to (reliably) detect cases where 
the map is not constructed properly?

Thanks,
Jørgen

> 
> Thanks,
> Richard
> 
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jørgen
>>
>> Jørgen Kvalsvik (2):
>>   Remove unecessary and broken MC/DC compile test
>>   Copy condition->expr map when inlining [PR114599]
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/gcov-19.c       | 11 ---------
>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/gcov-pr114599.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> gcc/tree-inline.cc                           | 20 +++++++++++++++-
>> 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/gcov-pr114599.c
>>
>> --
>> 2.30.2
>>