Re: gcov questions

[Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>]

Ed Swierk wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Nathan Sidwell wrote:

> > > (2) Eventually I would like to migrate to a more recent version of gcc.  
> > > I understand there were major changes in gcov in the 3.3 release, and a
> > > perusal of the CVS archives reveals more recent changes to gcov.  Is there
> > > a summary of recent gcov development activity, or features that are
> > > expected to be included in the 3.4 release?
> >
> > no. There were some changes in 3.3 then the file format was completely
> > redesigned for 3.4. I should probably write one ...
>
>
> Are there likely to be further significant changes in gcov before 3.4 is 
> released?
Not that I know of.

> > > As a workaround, I compile with the -fno-default-inline flag.  However,
> > > this causes ld to fail unless I rebuild my entire codebase, including any
> > > C++ libraries, with the same compiler flag.  Unfortunately some of those
> > > libraries themselves do not compile with that flag.
> >
> > wouldn't -fno-inline be the right thing? I don't immediately see why either
> > option would cause the problem your describe.
>
>
> No, -fno-inline seems to have no effect for functions defined implicitly
> inline (i.e. defined within a class definition).  With
> -fno-default-inline, the inline-ness is ignored, and code is generated as
> for a regular function, whether or not the function is called.  This lets
> gcov indicate that the function isn't covered.
I'm confused, where is the function emitted? the inline keyword is not just
a hint, but will effect linkage.

> I can post sample code illustrating the problem if anyone is interested.
please

nathan

--
Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::     CodeSourcery LLC
         The voices in my head said this was stupid too
nathan@codesourcery.com    ::     http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk