Re: [PATCH 0/2] Condition coverage fixes

[Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>]

Jørgen Kvalsvik <j@lambda.is> writes:

> 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

I couldn't find your BZ account, but FWIW:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114627.

Thanks.

>
> 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