https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to sshannin from comment #2) > Thanks for such a quick reply. I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding > you correctly about what you mean when you say this is expected. > > Are you indicating that it's desirable that the ubsan instrumentation is > visible to gcov and thus shows up as coverage gaps? No, it's not desirable, but the current gcov can't distinguish between read code and the instrumented one. > That seems to be what > you're indicating, but seems surprising to me, as it roughly makes the gcov > output useless. > > Certainly I'm not trying to get coverage about code that the compiler > inserted as an implementation detail of checking division. Is there way to > mark the ubsan-generated code as such so that gcov ignores it instead of > marking every division operation as having an uncovered branch? No, please do not combine UBSAN and GCOV. Use the separately.
