minglotus-6 wrote: > My concern with this approach is that compiler-rt is treated as a different > project and updating the code within LLVM makes it easy to miss running the > test locally for the other project. I think such issues will be caught by the > buildbot but having it flagged earlier is better for the developer. What do > you think?
Yeah presubmit test coverage makes sense. If it's desirable to get rid of 'update_vtable_value_prof_inputs.sh' and 'vtable-value-prof-basic.profraw' in the repo, here is another way: * For LLVM IR tests, store textual profiles in the repo, and run `llvm-profdata merge` to convert it to indexed profiles. * To have test coverage on raw profiles (generate raw profiles or convert it into other formats), have a compiler-rt test. I wonder if that is preferred over the current status (with script and `.profraw` in the repo). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66825 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
