> Is this still needed? I know Martin L did another teak for non-executed
> blocks in Ada... BUt I don't know enough to determine if it was
> sufficient to address this problem.
Yes, Martin's patch fixed the regression in Ada so mine is obsolete.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 11/03/2017 05:51 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as explained in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg00105.html
> we don't (necessarily) want to report non-executed blocks in Ada.
>
> The couple of attached patches prevent this from happening by detecting
> whether we are dea
> Yes, I've got patch candidate that's going to change gcov format.
Thanks. As discussed privately, here's a test harness for automatic coverage
testing in Ada, to be invoked like this:
make -C gcc -k check-gnat RUNTESTFLAGS="gcov.exp"
from the toplevel build directory.
The single test fails
On 11/06/2017 09:21 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I would probably incline to emit some information to *.gcno file that will
>> reflect that we should not report unexecuted blocks.
>
> I'm a bit reluctant to modify the gcov format, unless your changes did though.
Hello.
Yes, I've got patch candida
> I would probably incline to emit some information to *.gcno file that will
> reflect that we should not report unexecuted blocks.
I'm a bit reluctant to modify the gcov format, unless your changes did though.
> However, as I've been reading dump file:
>
> P.Add (const integer i1, const integer
On 11/03/2017 12:51 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Hi,
as explained in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg00105.html
we don't (necessarily) want to report non-executed blocks in Ada.
The couple of attached patches prevent this from happening by detecting
whether we are dealing with an A
Hi,
as explained in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg00105.html
we don't (necessarily) want to report non-executed blocks in Ada.
The couple of attached patches prevent this from happening by detecting
whether we are dealing with an Ada file; the first variant is optimal, the
sec
