================
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+// RUN: %dexter_regression_test_cxx_build %s -o %t
+// RUN: %dexter_regression_test_run --use-script --binary %t -- %s \
+// RUN: | FileCheck %s
+
+/// Test that Dexter respects for and after hit_counts.
+
+void receive(int N) {}
+
+int main() {
+ int Current = 0;
+ int Increment = 1;
+ for (int I = 0; I < 10; ++I) {
+ receive(Current); // !dex_label loop
+ Current += Increment++;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+// CHECK: total_watched_steps: 10
+// CHECK: correct_steps: 10
+// CHECK: incorrect_steps: 0
+// CHECK: partial_step_correctness: 10.0
+// CHECK: missing_var_steps: 0
+// CHECK: unexpected_value_steps: 0
+// CHECK: correct_step_coverage: 100.0% (10/10)
+// CHECK: seen_values: 10
+// CHECK: missing_values: 0
+
+/*
+---
+!where {function: receive, after_hit_count: 3, for_hit_count: 4}:
----------------
OCHyams wrote:
Just to be clear, am I right that you can only say `always`, `after n then
always`, `for n`, and `after n then for m` but not `for n then after m then
always`? if so it's fine, that feels a bit obscure, but imo how these compose
should be documented. If you can actually do the latter then we should have a
test for that too
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/203846
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
