On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:44 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 07/25/2018 03:50 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 3:38 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> Target clones have DECL_ARTIFICIAL set to 1, but we want to
> >> provide --coverage for that. With patched GCC on can see:
> >>
> >> -: 0:Source:pr85370.c
> >> -: 0:Graph:pr85370.gcno
> >> -: 0:Data:pr85370.gcda
> >> -: 0:Runs:1
> >> -: 0:Programs:1
> >> -: 1:__attribute__((target_clones("arch=slm","default")))
> >> 1: 2:int foo1 (int a, int b) { // executed #### wrongly
> >> 1: 3: return a + b;
> >> -: 4:}
> >> ------------------
> >> foo1.arch_slm.0:
> >> 0: 2:int foo1 (int a, int b) { // executed #### wrongly
> >> 0: 3: return a + b;
> >> -: 4:}
> >> ------------------
> >> foo1.default.1:
> >> 1: 2:int foo1 (int a, int b) { // executed #### wrongly
> >> 1: 3: return a + b;
> >> -: 4:}
> >> ------------------
> >> -: 5:
> >> 1: 6:int foo2 (int a, int b) {
> >> 1: 7: return a + b;
> >> -: 8:}
> >> -: 9:
> >> 1: 10:int main() {
> >> 1: 11: foo1(1, 1);
> >> 1: 12: foo2(1, 1);
> >> 1: 13: return 1;
> >> -: 14:}
> >>
> >> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests.
> >> Will install in couple of days if no objection.
> >
> > I wonder if representing the clones as artificial but have their body be
> > marked as inline instance of the original function works for gcov?
>
> Do you mean an inlined functions? If so, these are fine as gimple statements
> that were inlined still point to original source code.
>
> I think
> > it should for debuggers. A similar case is probably the
> > static_constructors_and_destructors
>
> Actually static_c_a_d were motivation for exclusion. They have location set
> to last line in source code and it's not intentional. Similarly implicit
> ctors/dtors (e.g. Centering<3>::Centering(Centering<3> const&)) are ignored
> as they don't have any real line of code in a source file.
>
> > function which has all ctors/dtors of static objects inlined into but
> > itself is
> > of course artificial. Is that handled correctly?
>
> Hope I explained enough?
The question is what you like to see - looking at your figure above it
looks like
you want to see separate coverage for the different clones even when they
are auto-generated by GCC? Isn't that inconsistent with for example
IPA-CP generated clones or inline instances? Manual multiversions
in source are already reported separately?
Richard.
> Martin
>
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> gcc/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> 2018-07-25 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
> >>
> >> PR gcov-profile/85370
> >> * coverage.c (coverage_begin_function): Do not mark target
> >> clones as artificial functions.
> >> ---
> >> gcc/coverage.c | 3 ++-
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >>
>
