Nathan Sidwell <nat...@codesourcery.com> writes: > On 02/22/16 14:35, Aaron Conole wrote: > >> D'oh, you're probably right. In my excitement to contribute, I forgot >> this was shared. I think 'w' should be correct, since this isn't >> intended to be read at all, but I could be convinced otherwise. > > sorry, I misremembered the encoding of write append, which is "a" -- > don't clobber the existing contents. I think that's the usual > behaviour for error logging (.xsession-error and the like).
Done. >> By lazy load, do you mean only after the first gcov_error call? That's >> probably a better approach, and I can recook, test, and resubmit with >> these corrected. > > Lazy opening -- open on first error output. Something like > > if (!gcov_error_file) > gcov_error_file = gcov_open_error_file (); > > in gcov_error? Before I start cooking up this change, is it possible I need to worry about gcov_error being invoked from multiple threads? If so, I'll need some kind of mutex which I think is not needed with the current design. > FWIW, I think this has missed the boat for gcc 6.1, as we're now in stage 4. No worries. -Aaron > nathan
