> The randomness here means that if we set UNKNOWN_LOCATION to insn, it > can get source location anywhere. Even with some small code layout > changes, the location for that insn could change. I would hope that in > the future, we add an assertion when emitting instruction to enforce > that INSN_LOCATION is never UNKNOWN_LOCATION. So when generate new > instructions/stmts, if we can surely know where it is coming from, it > is fine. Otherwise, instead of using UNKNOWN_LOCATION, we will set its > location to where it is inserted. How does that sound?
Still the same problem: you cannot make that a general rule, since you don't know the coverage status of the instruction just above the insertion point. If a later optimization moves the new statements around, you may well end up with wrong coverage info. -- Eric Botcazou
