This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL354924: [MS] Don't emit coverage for deleting dtors
(authored by rnk, committed by ).
Herald added a project: LLVM.
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks! Lgtm.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58691/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58691
rnk added inline comments.
Comment at: clang/test/Profile/cxx-abc-deleting-dtor.cpp:28
+// FIXME: Should we emit coverage info for deleting dtors? They do contain
+// conditional branches. LLVM IR PGO will insrument them just fine, though.
+
vsk wrote:
> Probably
rnk updated this revision to Diff 188434.
rnk marked 3 inline comments as done.
rnk added a comment.
- fix CHECK-NOT
- FIXME that isn't needed
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58691/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58691
Files:
clang/
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: clang/test/Profile/cxx-abc-deleting-dtor.cpp:28
+// FIXME: Should we emit coverage info for deleting dtors? They do contain
+// conditional branches. LLVM IR PGO will insrument them just fine, though.
+
Probably not. IIUC th
rnk created this revision.
rnk added a reviewer: vsk.
Herald added a subscriber: jdoerfert.
Herald added a project: clang.
The MS C++ ABI has no constructor variants, but it has destructor
variants, so we should move the deleting destructor variant check
outside the check for "does the ABI have co
