https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #44 from Martin Liška ---
Please update to at least GCC 8.4.0, it should be fixed there.
Older releases are not supported right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
Prasannanjaneyulu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p.padavala@camlintechnologi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #42 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Victor from comment #41)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #40)
> > Fixed on all active branches.
>
> I can confirm that coverage is working for us compiling gcc from
> gcc-9-branch from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #41 from Victor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #40)
> Fixed on all active branches.
I can confirm that coverage is working for us compiling gcc from gcc-9-branch
from https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc mirror repository.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #39 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue May 14 09:12:47 2019
New Revision: 271155
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271155=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport r271117
2019-05-14 Martin Liska
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #38 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue May 14 09:12:35 2019
New Revision: 271154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271154=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport r271116
2019-05-14 Martin Liska
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #37 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Victor from comment #34)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #26)
> > Created attachment 46336 [details]
> > Patch 2/2
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> sorry for a newbie question ... but, which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #36 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue May 14 08:46:35 2019
New Revision: 271151
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271151=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport r271117
2019-05-14 Martin Liska
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #35 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue May 14 08:46:27 2019
New Revision: 271150
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271150=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport r271116
2019-05-14 Martin Liska
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #34 from Victor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #26)
> Created attachment 46336 [details]
> Patch 2/2
Hi Martin,
sorry for a newbie question ... but, which version this patch applies on?
I mean, I would like to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #33 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Victor from comment #32)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #31)
> > Fixed on trunk so far.
>
> Thanks Martin!
>
> is this going to be released within 8.X or 9.X branches/versions?
Yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #32 from Victor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #31)
> Fixed on trunk so far.
Thanks Martin!
is this going to be released within 8.X or 9.X branches/versions?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #30 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon May 13 07:05:23 2019
New Revision: 271117
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271117=gcc=rev
Log:
Do not follow zero edges in cycle detection (PR gcov-profile/90380).
2019-05-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #29 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon May 13 07:04:58 2019
New Revision: 271116
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271116=gcc=rev
Log:
Test for not existence of a negative loop (PR gcov-profile/90380).
2019-05-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #28 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #27)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #25)
> > (In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #24)
> > > Created attachment 46335 [details]
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #27 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #25)
> (In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #24)
> > Created attachment 46335 [details]
> > Testcase: Fortran coverage .gcda and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #26 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46336
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46336=edit
Patch 2/2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #25 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #24)
> Created attachment 46335 [details]
> Testcase: Fortran coverage .gcda and .gcno files
>
> Hi Martin
>
> here is coverage test data for one of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #24 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Created attachment 46335
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46335=edit
Testcase: Fortran coverage .gcda and .gcno files
Hi Martin
here is coverage test data for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #21)
> Hi,
>
> for me the patch seems to solve the problem only for some of the Fortran
> files.
>
> I applied the patch in my GCC 9.1.0 build and I still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #22 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Created attachment 46333
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46333=edit
Fortran module -fdump-tree-original
Hi again,
I also generated the -fdump-tree-original
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #21 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Hi,
for me the patch seems to solve the problem only for some of the Fortran files.
I applied the patch in my GCC 9.1.0 build and I still have 4 files where gcov
does not seem to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #20 from Victor ---
Hi Martin,
these are great news!
Indeed we are using 9.1.0 till today for the CI process, and since monday for
testing purposes before production.
The coverage issue is still present in GCC 9.1.0. The great
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Victor from comment #18)
> Created attachment 46330 [details]
> -fdump-tree-original?
>
> Martin,
>
> this is the first time I use this flag. Is the attached file the one you are
> asking for?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #18 from Victor ---
Created attachment 46330
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46330=edit
-fdump-tree-original?
Martin,
this is the first time I use this flag. Is the attached file the one you are
asking for?
If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
>
> this is weird, line 688 is an "end module" statement.
I see. Can you please use -fdump-tree-original and attach the dump file it
generates?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #16 from Victor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> (In reply to Victor from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > > Created attachment 46320 [details]
> > > Dot of basic blocks at 6191':688
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Victor from comment #13)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 46320 [details]
> > Dot of basic blocks at 6191':688
> >
> > Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #13 from Victor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> Created attachment 46320 [details]
> Dot of basic blocks at 6191':688
>
> Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688 source line contains enormous number
> of basic block
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #12 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Btw. in our gcc 7.2 coverage (which works fine), I often see about 800 branches
at an "end module" statement...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch that I've been testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #7)
> Out of curiosity I tried to have a look at the debug output:
>
> It seems to me that it gets stuck in the circuit detection of a source line
> that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #9 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> Created attachment 46320 [details]
> Dot of basic blocks at p4est_triangulation.f90':688
>
> Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688 source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46320
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46320=edit
Dot of basic blocks at p4est_triangulation.f90':688
Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688 source line contains
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #7 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Out of curiosity I tried to have a look at the debug output:
It seems to me that it gets stuck in the circuit detection of a source line
that just contains an "end module"-statement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #6 from Victor ---
Thanks for your quick responses Martin!
Please, let us know any advance on this.
Best regards,
Víctor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #4)
> Hi
>
> I have a similar problem with GCC 9.1.0, GCC 7.2.0 works fine.
> (I also had problems with GCC 8.1.0 but I did not check that this is
> actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed, I see following back-trace:
#0 0x0044f9d4 in handle_cycle (count=, edges=...) at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #1 from Victor ---
Sorry,
the command to launch the docker container has an extra `gcov` at the end.
To correctly launch the container, please use this command:
$ docker run --rm -ti fempar/fempar:gnu-8.3.0_gcov-issue
Best,
44 matches
Mail list logo
