Examples | Configure against a coverage-enabled BSP fails (#2)

[Chris Johns (@chris)]

Chris Johns commented on a discussion: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems-examples/-/issues/2#note_135008


The only difference is the addition of `-lgcov` library. The options used are:

```
--coverage -fprofile-info-section=.rtemsroset.gcov_info.content -fprofile-update=atomic
```

and to quote GCC `--coverage` is a synonym for <samp>`-fprofile-arcs`</samp> <samp>`-ftest-coverage`</samp> (when compiling) and <samp>`-lgcov`</samp> (when linking). Why not be consistent with the flags being used?

I am still considering what means. I did not know coverage like this was buried in the configuration options. 

How would a user know they have an instrumented RTEMS if we hide all the dependencies?

-- 
View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems-examples/-/issues/2#note_135008
You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/bugs/attachments/20251015/a80e6ca8/attachment-0001.htm>