http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56773
--- Comment #4 from peter.hans.froehlich at gmail dot com 2013-04-02 13:10:22 UTC --- I am fine with your decision to declare this INVALID, I'd just like to understand the reasoning. You're saying that it's okay for code injected by gcc to crash depending on the context in which it is injected? From the perspective of a mere user, that seems entirely unsatisfying. After all fopen() doesn't crash when I define a symbol called open in my code, and fopen() presumably needs to use the open() syscall eventually just like the code injected by gcc for --coverage does. If gcc would inject code with suitably mangled names, wouldn't this issue disappear? (Thank you to whoever takes the time to explain this to me. BTW, I understand *why* fopen() doesn't crash, that's not the issue.)
