| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Discard the last uncompleted deferred region in a decl, if one exists.
This prevents lines at the end of a function containing only whitespace
or closing braces from being marked as uncovered, if they follow a
region terminator (return/break/etc).
The previous behavior was to heuristically complete deferred regions at
the end of a decl. In practice this ended up being too brittle for too
little gain. Users would complain that there was no way to reach full
code coverage because whitespace at the end of a function would be
marked uncovered.
rdar://40238228
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46918
|
|
The area immediately after the closing right-paren of an if condition
should have a count equal to the 'then' block's count. Use a gap region
to set this count, so that region highlighting for the 'then' block
remains precise.
This solves a problem we have with wrapped segments. Consider:
1| if (false)
2| foo();
Without a gap area starting after the condition, the wrapped segment
from line 1 would make it look like line 2 is executed, when it's not.
rdar://35373009
|
|
The current coverage implementation doesn't handle region termination
very precisely. Take for example an `if' statement with a `return':
void f() {
if (true) {
return; // The `if' body's region is terminated here.
}
// This line gets the same coverage as the `if' condition.
}
If the function `f' is called, the line containing the comment will be
marked as having executed once, which is not correct.
The solution here is to create a deferred region after terminating a
region. The deferred region is completed once the start location of the
next statement is known, and is then pushed onto the region stack.
In the cases where it's not possible to complete a deferred region, it
can safely be dropped.
Testing: lit test updates, a stage2 coverage-enabled build of clang
This is a reapplication but there are no changes from the original commit.
With D36813, the segment builder in llvm will be able to handle deferred
regions correctly.
|
|
This reverts commit r310010. I don't think there's anything wrong with
this commit, but it's causing clang to generate output that llvm-cov
doesn't do a good job with and the fix isn't immediately clear.
See Eli's comment in D36250 for more context.
I'm reverting the clang change so the coverage bot can revert back to
producing sensible output, and to give myself some time to investigate
what went wrong in llvm.
|
|
The current coverage implementation doesn't handle region termination
very precisely. Take for example an `if' statement with a `return':
void f() {
if (true) {
return; // The `if' body's region is terminated here.
}
// This line gets the same coverage as the `if' condition.
}
If the function `f' is called, the line containing the comment will be
marked as having executed once, which is not correct.
The solution here is to create a deferred region after terminating a
region. The deferred region is completed once the start location of the
next statement is known, and is then pushed onto the region stack.
In the cases where it's not possible to complete a deferred region, it
can safely be dropped.
Testing: lit test updates, a stage2 coverage-enabled build of clang
|
|
This patch changes cc1 option -fprofile-instr-generate to an enum option
-fprofile-instrument={clang|none}. It also changes cc1 options
-fprofile-instr-generate= to -fprofile-instrument-path=.
The driver level option -fprofile-instr-generate and -fprofile-instr-generate=
remain intact. This change will pave the way to integrate new PGO
instrumentation in IR level.
Review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16730
|
|
When tools like llvm-cov show regions, it's much easier to understand
what's happening if the condition of an if shows a counter as well as
the body.
|
|
The coverage mapping generation code previously generated a large
number of redundant coverage regions and then tried to merge similar
ones back together. This then relied on some awkward heuristics to
prevent combining of regions that were importantly different but
happened to have the same count. The end result was inefficient and
hard to follow.
Now, we more carefully create the regions we actually want. This makes
it much easier to create regions at precise locations as well as
making the basic approach quite a bit easier to follow. There's still
a fair bit of complexity here dealing with included code and macro
expansions, but that's pretty hard to avoid without significantly
reducing the quality of data we provide.
I had to modify quite a few tests where the source ranges became more
precise or the old ranges seemed to be wrong anyways, and I've added
quite a few new tests since a large number of constructs didn't seem
to be tested before.
|
