This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: gcc: -ftest-coverage and -auxbase


> From: Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz>
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 9:07 AM
> 
> On 6/20/19 3:00 PM, David.Taylor@dell.com wrote:
> >
> >> From: Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz>
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 5:12 AM
> >>
> >> On 6/19/19 7:11 PM, David.Taylor@dell.com wrote:
> >>> Thanks for the patch.  Standalone it is not sufficient.  Combined
> >>> with the other two changes that have been discussed --
> >>
> >> Why is that not sufficient? If you build from top-level and you have
> >> .o files that overwrite each other, then you can set
> >> -fprofile-note-dir=/tmp/my- unique-folder
> >>
> >> And you'll not overwrite .gcno files.
> >>
> >> Martin
> >
> > Right now GCC names the GCNO files '-.gcno'.
> >
> > With your patch they get put into a specified directory.  But, unless
> > I am prepared to create over 16,000 directories each to hold just one
> > file (I'm not), it is not sufficient.
> >
> > What I want to do -- unless it is going to create problems -- is to
> > place the notes files alongside the object files.  The files foo.o and
> > foo.gcno would be in the same directory.

> I would recommend that. You can achieve that with -fprofile-note-dir=.

But unless some other change is also made, the '-o -' part of our
compilation line results in all the notes files having names of
'-.gcno'.  While I have considered replacing the '-o -' with '-pipe'
when doing instrumentation, I am loathe to make the dot c to 
dot o rule any more complicated -- it is already 30+ lines long.

Your patch makes things much better.  And for many it would be sufficient.  For us, sadly, it is not enough.

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