Marc Espie <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 07:43:35AM -0400, Bryan Steele wrote: > > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 01:20:10PM +0200, Frederic Cambus wrote: > > > Hi tech@, > > > > > > The base system includes the compiler-rt profile library for > > > source-based code coverage. > > > > > > So here is a diff to document support in clang-local.1, the same > > > way we document support for the ubsan_minimal sanitizer runtime > > > which is also part of compiler-rt. > > > > > > Comments? OK? > > > > > > Index: share/man/man1/clang-local.1 > > > =================================================================== > > > RCS file: /cvs/src/share/man/man1/clang-local.1,v > > > retrieving revision 1.23 > > > diff -u -p -r1.23 clang-local.1 > > > --- share/man/man1/clang-local.1 18 Feb 2022 00:39:18 -0000 1.23 > > > +++ share/man/man1/clang-local.1 4 May 2022 11:03:11 -0000 > > > @@ -99,6 +99,15 @@ See the documentation for the > > > .Fl fsanitize-minimal-runtime > > > flag. > > > .It > > > +The base system includes the compiler-rt profile library for > > > +source-based code coverage. See the documentation for the > > > +.Fl fprofile-instr-generate > > > +and > > > +.Fl fcoverage-mapping > > > +flags. > > > +Note that llvm-profdata and llvm-cov tools from devel/llvm are > > > +required to process coverage data and produce reports. > > > +.It > > > The > > > .Xr malloc 3 , > > > .Xr calloc 3 , > > > > Isn't the purpose of the clang-local(1) to document local changes to the > > system compiler, -fsanitize-minimal-runtime feels like a special case as > > we do not have the complete sanitizer runtime. > > What do you suggest as a good location where people will > find that information easily ?
Who knows, but probably not in clang-local.1 I actually find it a bit offensive when a base document has to mention something not in base. While here, let me make a comment on the proposal's use of the token "devel/llvm" -- that is so completely obtuse and out of touch with the potential user base. The average person will not understand that at all. It is hugely presumptious that anyone searching for this compiler tooling will be familiar with the "ports" tree-heiracry; the reality is NOONE uses ports, instead they use packages with has a completely different namespace, and thus "devel/llvm" is completely meaningless to a person who uses packages. Note that adding "Note that" doesn't help either.
