This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: gcov questions

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.


Nathan Sidwell    ::   ::     CodeSourcery LLC
         The voices in my head said this was stupid too    ::

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]