Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 15:46:14 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005031243550.1423-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000503154420.6759A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 3 May 2000, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> For typical C sources: yes. But if there is executable inline code in a
> header file, this scheme would break.
> 
> 	source.c --> source.bb
> 	source.h --> source.bb

Right.  I didn't know that gcov does this for headers as well.

> OTOH, there's not much else one could do (short of
> creating subdirectories and writing filenames like 'bb/source.c',
> 'bbg/source.c' and the like).

I think we should do just that (i.e. put each sort of file into its own 
subdirectory).  I don't see any other reliable way of solving this.