https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49430
Bug ID: 49430
Summary: [LLVM-COV] Split "for" statement has different
coverage
Product: Runtime Libraries
Version: 11.0
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: libprofile library
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
$ clang -v
clang version 11.0.0
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /home/wangyang/llvm-project/build/bin
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/7
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/7.5.0
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8
Selected GCC installation: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/7.5.0
Candidate multilib: .;@m64
Selected multilib: .;@m64
$ cat test.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
for (int *p = (int[]){1, 2, 3, 0}; /* { dg-error "array" } */
*p;
++p) {
printf("%d\n", *p);
}
return 0;
}
$ clang -w -O0 -g -fcoverage-mapping -fprofile-instr-generate=test.profraw
test.c; ./a.out; llvm-profdata merge test.profraw -o test.profdata; llvm-cov
show a.out -instr-profile=test.profdata test.c > test.lcov; cat test.lcov
1
2
3
1| |#include <stdio.h>
2| |
3| 1|int main() {
4| 1| for (int *p = (int[]){1, 2, 3, 0}; /* { dg-error "array" } */
5| 4| *p;
6| 3| ++p) {
7| 3| printf("%d\n", *p);
8| 3| }
9| 1| return 0;
10| 1|}
When split, for statement has different coverage in different line. I
understand it clearly, but is it more reasonable to unify their counts from the
perspective of statement coverage?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug._______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
