On 27 October 2014 00:57, Artur Szostak <aszos...@partner.eso.org> wrote:
> >> Is there any way to control how the symbols related to code coverage > such as _llvm_gcov_init are created? > >> Specifically can they be disabled? or forced? or made to be > public/exported? > > > > Disabling code coverage will disable creation of these symbols. Beyond > that, we don't offer fine grained control > > over them. Why do you ask? > > Thanks you for the information. > Just one additional question, am I correct to understand that the code for > _llvm_gcov_init is implicitly injected into the binary? The reason I ask is > there are some posts floating around online talking about linking against > libprofile_rt.a. But I suspect this is not relevant. > We do not inject the functions into the binary, only calls to them. The definitions are in libprofile_rt.a as you suspect, which is part of the compiler-rt project. Clang adds that to the link if you pass the coverage flags when linking. _______________________________________________ > cfe-users mailing list > cfe-users@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users >
_______________________________________________ cfe-users mailing list cfe-users@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users
