https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #22) > count_rate(8),count_max(1) = 0 127 > > OK, but the last line looks strange: lacking documentation, > I'd expect the rate to be 1, not 0. (Not that I'd use that > in real code...). Yes, tha last one is wrong. I will look into it. I realize that by adding an additional argument we modify the interface so we may have to do something with symbol versioning. Doing it the way I did eliminates multiple calls but there are always trade-offs
