On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 3:38 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> Target clones have DECL_ARTIFICIAL set to 1, but we want to
> provide --coverage for that. With patched GCC on can see:
>
> -: 0:Source:pr85370.c
> -: 0:Graph:pr85370.gcno
> -: 0:Data:pr85370.gcda
> -: 0:Runs:1
> -: 0:Programs:1
> -: 1:__attribute__((target_clones("arch=slm","default")))
> 1: 2:int foo1 (int a, int b) { // executed #### wrongly
> 1: 3: return a + b;
> -: 4:}
> ------------------
> foo1.arch_slm.0:
> 0: 2:int foo1 (int a, int b) { // executed #### wrongly
> 0: 3: return a + b;
> -: 4:}
> ------------------
> foo1.default.1:
> 1: 2:int foo1 (int a, int b) { // executed #### wrongly
> 1: 3: return a + b;
> -: 4:}
> ------------------
> -: 5:
> 1: 6:int foo2 (int a, int b) {
> 1: 7: return a + b;
> -: 8:}
> -: 9:
> 1: 10:int main() {
> 1: 11: foo1(1, 1);
> 1: 12: foo2(1, 1);
> 1: 13: return 1;
> -: 14:}
>
> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests.
> Will install in couple of days if no objection.
I wonder if representing the clones as artificial but have their body be
marked as inline instance of the original function works for gcov? I think
it should for debuggers. A similar case is probably the
static_constructors_and_destructors
function which has all ctors/dtors of static objects inlined into but itself is
of course artificial. Is that handled correctly?
Richard.
> Martin
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2018-07-25 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
>
> PR gcov-profile/85370
> * coverage.c (coverage_begin_function): Do not mark target
> clones as artificial functions.
> ---
> gcc/coverage.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>
