This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Add an intermediate coverage format for gcov
Since the updated patch already uses unmangled function names, is it
good to commit then?
Sharad
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Sharad Singhai <singhai@google.com> wrote:
>> > Okay, I liked the idea of self-descriptive tags. I have updated the
>> > patch based on your suggestions. I have simplified the format
>> > somewhat. Instead of repeating function name, I use a 'function' tag
>> > with the format
>> >
>> > function:<name>,<line number>,<execution count>
>>
>> Sound nice.
>>
>> > I also dropped the unmangled function names, they were turning out to
>> > be too unreadable and not really useful in this context.
>>
>> Ah, I'd argue for mangled names. ?Every one knows they can stream through c++filt and get unmangled, but once you unmangle, you can never go back. ?Also, the mangled version is significantly smaller. ?For c, it is irrelevant, for c++, it makes a big difference.
>
> I would also support unmangled variant. Otherwise the patch seems resonable to me.
>
> Honza
>> >
>