> On Jun 4, 2016, at 6:28 PM, Sean Silva <chisophu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Vedant Kumar via cfe-commits
> <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: vedantk
> Date: Thu Jun 2 12:19:45 2016
> New Revision: 271544
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271544&view=rev
> Log:
> [docs] Add a limitations section to SourceBasedCodeCoverage.rst
>
> Modified:
> cfe/trunk/docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.rst
>
> Modified: cfe/trunk/docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.rst
> URL:
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.rst?rev=271544&r1=271543&r2=271544&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- cfe/trunk/docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.rst (original)
> +++ cfe/trunk/docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.rst Thu Jun 2 12:19:45 2016
> @@ -165,9 +165,9 @@ A few final notes:
> indexed profiles. To combine profiling data from multiple runs of a
> program,
> try e.g:
>
> -.. code-block:: console
> + .. code-block:: console
>
> - % llvm-profdata merge -sparse foo1.profraw foo2.profdata -o foo3.profdata
> + % llvm-profdata merge -sparse foo1.profraw foo2.profdata -o
> foo3.profdata
>
> Format compatibility guarantees
> ===============================
> @@ -184,3 +184,20 @@ Format compatibility guarantees
> * There is a third format in play: the format of the coverage mappings
> emitted
> into instrumented binaries. Tools must retain **backwards** compatibility
> with these formats. These formats are not forwards-compatible.
> +
> +Drawbacks and limitations
> +=========================
> +
> +* Code coverage does not handle stack unwinding in the presence of uncaught
> + exceptions precisely.
>
> I think it's more accurate to say "thrown exceptions" (or just "exceptions")
> instead of "uncaught exceptions". The latter could be interpreted as meaning
> that if the exception is caught later (in a caller of f), then the result
> might still be precise.
Fair point, I've dropped the "uncaught" modifier.
> Also setjmp/longjmp can affect things too, no?
Yes, I mentioned this in r271902. Feel free to change up the wording!
thanks
vedant
>
> -- Sean Silva
>
> Consider the following function:
> +
> + .. code-block:: cpp
> +
> + int f() {
> + may_throw();
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + If the function ``may_throw()`` propagates an exception into ``f``, the
> code
> + coverage tool may mark the ``return`` statement as executed even though it
> is
> + not.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
