On 08/05/16 09:43, Martin Liška wrote:
On 08/05/2016 03:14 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 08/05/16 08:48, Martin Liška wrote:
Ok, after all the experimenting and inventing "almost" thread-safe code, I
incline to not to include __gcov_one_value_profiler_body_atomic
counter. The final solution is cumbersome and probably does not worth doing.
Moreover, even having a thread-safe implementation, result of an indirect call
counter
is not going to be stable among different runs (due to a single value storage
capability).
If you agree, I'll prepare a final version of patch?
Agreed.
nathan
Great, attaching install candidate.
ok, thanks.