maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/clang/test/CoverageMapping/moremacros.c

41 lines
1.7 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

[PGO] cc1 option name change for profile instrumentation This patch changes cc1 option -fprofile-instr-generate to an enum option -fprofile-instrument={clang|none}. It also changes cc1 options -fprofile-instr-generate= to -fprofile-instrument-path=. The driver level option -fprofile-instr-generate and -fprofile-instr-generate= remain intact. This change will pave the way to integrate new PGO instrumentation in IR level. Review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16730 llvm-svn: 259811
2016-02-05 02:39:09 +08:00
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fprofile-instrument=clang -fcoverage-mapping -dump-coverage-mapping -emit-llvm-only -main-file-name macro-expansion.c %s | FileCheck %s
InstrProf: Rewrite most of coverage mapping generation in a simpler way The coverage mapping generation code previously generated a large number of redundant coverage regions and then tried to merge similar ones back together. This then relied on some awkward heuristics to prevent combining of regions that were importantly different but happened to have the same count. The end result was inefficient and hard to follow. Now, we more carefully create the regions we actually want. This makes it much easier to create regions at precise locations as well as making the basic approach quite a bit easier to follow. There's still a fair bit of complexity here dealing with included code and macro expansions, but that's pretty hard to avoid without significantly reducing the quality of data we provide. I had to modify quite a few tests where the source ranges became more precise or the old ranges seemed to be wrong anyways, and I've added quite a few new tests since a large number of constructs didn't seem to be tested before. llvm-svn: 229748
2015-02-19 05:24:51 +08:00
#define LBRAC {
#define RBRAC }
// CHECK: main:
InstrProf: Always emit a coverage region for the condition of an if When tools like llvm-cov show regions, it's much easier to understand what's happening if the condition of an if shows a counter as well as the body. llvm-svn: 229813
2015-02-19 11:10:30 +08:00
// CHECK-NEXT: File 0, [[@LINE+1]]:40 -> {{[0-9]+}}:2 = #0
InstrProf: Rewrite most of coverage mapping generation in a simpler way The coverage mapping generation code previously generated a large number of redundant coverage regions and then tried to merge similar ones back together. This then relied on some awkward heuristics to prevent combining of regions that were importantly different but happened to have the same count. The end result was inefficient and hard to follow. Now, we more carefully create the regions we actually want. This makes it much easier to create regions at precise locations as well as making the basic approach quite a bit easier to follow. There's still a fair bit of complexity here dealing with included code and macro expansions, but that's pretty hard to avoid without significantly reducing the quality of data we provide. I had to modify quite a few tests where the source ranges became more precise or the old ranges seemed to be wrong anyways, and I've added quite a few new tests since a large number of constructs didn't seem to be tested before. llvm-svn: 229748
2015-02-19 05:24:51 +08:00
int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) {
InstrProf: Always emit a coverage region for the condition of an if When tools like llvm-cov show regions, it's much easier to understand what's happening if the condition of an if shows a counter as well as the body. llvm-svn: 229813
2015-02-19 11:10:30 +08:00
// CHECK-NEXT: File 0, [[@LINE+1]]:7 -> [[@LINE+1]]:12 = #0
InstrProf: Rewrite most of coverage mapping generation in a simpler way The coverage mapping generation code previously generated a large number of redundant coverage regions and then tried to merge similar ones back together. This then relied on some awkward heuristics to prevent combining of regions that were importantly different but happened to have the same count. The end result was inefficient and hard to follow. Now, we more carefully create the regions we actually want. This makes it much easier to create regions at precise locations as well as making the basic approach quite a bit easier to follow. There's still a fair bit of complexity here dealing with included code and macro expansions, but that's pretty hard to avoid without significantly reducing the quality of data we provide. I had to modify quite a few tests where the source ranges became more precise or the old ranges seemed to be wrong anyways, and I've added quite a few new tests since a large number of constructs didn't seem to be tested before. llvm-svn: 229748
2015-02-19 05:24:51 +08:00
if (!argc) {} // CHECK-NEXT: File 0, [[@LINE]]:14 -> [[@LINE]]:16 = #1
InstrProf: Always emit a coverage region for the condition of an if When tools like llvm-cov show regions, it's much easier to understand what's happening if the condition of an if shows a counter as well as the body. llvm-svn: 229813
2015-02-19 11:10:30 +08:00
// CHECK-NEXT: File 0, [[@LINE+3]]:7 -> [[@LINE+3]]:12 = #0
InstrProf: Rewrite most of coverage mapping generation in a simpler way The coverage mapping generation code previously generated a large number of redundant coverage regions and then tried to merge similar ones back together. This then relied on some awkward heuristics to prevent combining of regions that were importantly different but happened to have the same count. The end result was inefficient and hard to follow. Now, we more carefully create the regions we actually want. This makes it much easier to create regions at precise locations as well as making the basic approach quite a bit easier to follow. There's still a fair bit of complexity here dealing with included code and macro expansions, but that's pretty hard to avoid without significantly reducing the quality of data we provide. I had to modify quite a few tests where the source ranges became more precise or the old ranges seemed to be wrong anyways, and I've added quite a few new tests since a large number of constructs didn't seem to be tested before. llvm-svn: 229748
2015-02-19 05:24:51 +08:00
// CHECK-NEXT: Expansion,File 0, [[@LINE+2]]:14 -> [[@LINE+2]]:19 = #2
// CHECK-NEXT: File 0, [[@LINE+1]]:19 -> [[@LINE+4]]:8 = #2
if (!argc) LBRAC
return 0;
// CHECK-NEXT: Expansion,File 0, [[@LINE+1]]:3 -> [[@LINE+1]]:8 = #2
[Coverage] Precise region termination with deferred regions (reapply) The current coverage implementation doesn't handle region termination very precisely. Take for example an `if' statement with a `return': void f() { if (true) { return; // The `if' body's region is terminated here. } // This line gets the same coverage as the `if' condition. } If the function `f' is called, the line containing the comment will be marked as having executed once, which is not correct. The solution here is to create a deferred region after terminating a region. The deferred region is completed once the start location of the next statement is known, and is then pushed onto the region stack. In the cases where it's not possible to complete a deferred region, it can safely be dropped. Testing: lit test updates, a stage2 coverage-enabled build of clang This is a reapplication but there are no changes from the original commit. With D36813, the segment builder in llvm will be able to handle deferred regions correctly. llvm-svn: 312818
2017-09-09 02:44:56 +08:00
RBRAC // CHECK-NEXT: [[@LINE]]:8 -> [[@LINE+6]]:3 = (#0 - #2)
InstrProf: Rewrite most of coverage mapping generation in a simpler way The coverage mapping generation code previously generated a large number of redundant coverage regions and then tried to merge similar ones back together. This then relied on some awkward heuristics to prevent combining of regions that were importantly different but happened to have the same count. The end result was inefficient and hard to follow. Now, we more carefully create the regions we actually want. This makes it much easier to create regions at precise locations as well as making the basic approach quite a bit easier to follow. There's still a fair bit of complexity here dealing with included code and macro expansions, but that's pretty hard to avoid without significantly reducing the quality of data we provide. I had to modify quite a few tests where the source ranges became more precise or the old ranges seemed to be wrong anyways, and I've added quite a few new tests since a large number of constructs didn't seem to be tested before. llvm-svn: 229748
2015-02-19 05:24:51 +08:00
InstrProf: Always emit a coverage region for the condition of an if When tools like llvm-cov show regions, it's much easier to understand what's happening if the condition of an if shows a counter as well as the body. llvm-svn: 229813
2015-02-19 11:10:30 +08:00
// CHECK-NEXT: File 0, [[@LINE+4]]:3 -> [[@LINE+15]]:2 = (#0 - #2)
// CHECK-NEXT: File 0, [[@LINE+3]]:7 -> [[@LINE+3]]:12 = (#0 - #2)
InstrProf: Rewrite most of coverage mapping generation in a simpler way The coverage mapping generation code previously generated a large number of redundant coverage regions and then tried to merge similar ones back together. This then relied on some awkward heuristics to prevent combining of regions that were importantly different but happened to have the same count. The end result was inefficient and hard to follow. Now, we more carefully create the regions we actually want. This makes it much easier to create regions at precise locations as well as making the basic approach quite a bit easier to follow. There's still a fair bit of complexity here dealing with included code and macro expansions, but that's pretty hard to avoid without significantly reducing the quality of data we provide. I had to modify quite a few tests where the source ranges became more precise or the old ranges seemed to be wrong anyways, and I've added quite a few new tests since a large number of constructs didn't seem to be tested before. llvm-svn: 229748
2015-02-19 05:24:51 +08:00
// CHECK-NEXT: Expansion,File 0, [[@LINE+2]]:14 -> [[@LINE+2]]:19 = #3
// CHECK-NEXT: File 0, [[@LINE+1]]:19 -> [[@LINE+3]]:4 = #3
if (!argc) LBRAC
return 0;
[Coverage] Precise region termination with deferred regions (reapply) The current coverage implementation doesn't handle region termination very precisely. Take for example an `if' statement with a `return': void f() { if (true) { return; // The `if' body's region is terminated here. } // This line gets the same coverage as the `if' condition. } If the function `f' is called, the line containing the comment will be marked as having executed once, which is not correct. The solution here is to create a deferred region after terminating a region. The deferred region is completed once the start location of the next statement is known, and is then pushed onto the region stack. In the cases where it's not possible to complete a deferred region, it can safely be dropped. Testing: lit test updates, a stage2 coverage-enabled build of clang This is a reapplication but there are no changes from the original commit. With D36813, the segment builder in llvm will be able to handle deferred regions correctly. llvm-svn: 312818
2017-09-09 02:44:56 +08:00
} // CHECK-NEXT: [[@LINE]]:4 -> [[@LINE+5]]:3 = ((#0 - #2) - #3)
InstrProf: Rewrite most of coverage mapping generation in a simpler way The coverage mapping generation code previously generated a large number of redundant coverage regions and then tried to merge similar ones back together. This then relied on some awkward heuristics to prevent combining of regions that were importantly different but happened to have the same count. The end result was inefficient and hard to follow. Now, we more carefully create the regions we actually want. This makes it much easier to create regions at precise locations as well as making the basic approach quite a bit easier to follow. There's still a fair bit of complexity here dealing with included code and macro expansions, but that's pretty hard to avoid without significantly reducing the quality of data we provide. I had to modify quite a few tests where the source ranges became more precise or the old ranges seemed to be wrong anyways, and I've added quite a few new tests since a large number of constructs didn't seem to be tested before. llvm-svn: 229748
2015-02-19 05:24:51 +08:00
InstrProf: Always emit a coverage region for the condition of an if When tools like llvm-cov show regions, it's much easier to understand what's happening if the condition of an if shows a counter as well as the body. llvm-svn: 229813
2015-02-19 11:10:30 +08:00
// CHECK-NEXT: File 0, [[@LINE+3]]:3 -> [[@LINE+7]]:2 = ((#0 - #2) - #3)
// CHECK-NEXT: File 0, [[@LINE+2]]:7 -> [[@LINE+2]]:12 = ((#0 - #2) - #3)
InstrProf: Rewrite most of coverage mapping generation in a simpler way The coverage mapping generation code previously generated a large number of redundant coverage regions and then tried to merge similar ones back together. This then relied on some awkward heuristics to prevent combining of regions that were importantly different but happened to have the same count. The end result was inefficient and hard to follow. Now, we more carefully create the regions we actually want. This makes it much easier to create regions at precise locations as well as making the basic approach quite a bit easier to follow. There's still a fair bit of complexity here dealing with included code and macro expansions, but that's pretty hard to avoid without significantly reducing the quality of data we provide. I had to modify quite a few tests where the source ranges became more precise or the old ranges seemed to be wrong anyways, and I've added quite a few new tests since a large number of constructs didn't seem to be tested before. llvm-svn: 229748
2015-02-19 05:24:51 +08:00
// CHECK-NEXT: File 0, [[@LINE+1]]:14 -> [[@LINE+4]]:8 = #4
if (!argc) {
return 0;
// CHECK-NEXT: Expansion,File 0, [[@LINE+1]]:3 -> [[@LINE+1]]:8 = #4
[Coverage] Precise region termination with deferred regions (reapply) The current coverage implementation doesn't handle region termination very precisely. Take for example an `if' statement with a `return': void f() { if (true) { return; // The `if' body's region is terminated here. } // This line gets the same coverage as the `if' condition. } If the function `f' is called, the line containing the comment will be marked as having executed once, which is not correct. The solution here is to create a deferred region after terminating a region. The deferred region is completed once the start location of the next statement is known, and is then pushed onto the region stack. In the cases where it's not possible to complete a deferred region, it can safely be dropped. Testing: lit test updates, a stage2 coverage-enabled build of clang This is a reapplication but there are no changes from the original commit. With D36813, the segment builder in llvm will be able to handle deferred regions correctly. llvm-svn: 312818
2017-09-09 02:44:56 +08:00
RBRAC // CHECK-NEXT: [[@LINE]]:8 -> [[@LINE+1]]:2 = (((#0 - #2) - #3) - #4)
InstrProf: Rewrite most of coverage mapping generation in a simpler way The coverage mapping generation code previously generated a large number of redundant coverage regions and then tried to merge similar ones back together. This then relied on some awkward heuristics to prevent combining of regions that were importantly different but happened to have the same count. The end result was inefficient and hard to follow. Now, we more carefully create the regions we actually want. This makes it much easier to create regions at precise locations as well as making the basic approach quite a bit easier to follow. There's still a fair bit of complexity here dealing with included code and macro expansions, but that's pretty hard to avoid without significantly reducing the quality of data we provide. I had to modify quite a few tests where the source ranges became more precise or the old ranges seemed to be wrong anyways, and I've added quite a few new tests since a large number of constructs didn't seem to be tested before. llvm-svn: 229748
2015-02-19 05:24:51 +08:00
}
// CHECK-NEXT: File 1, 3:15 -> 3:16 = #2
// CHECK-NEXT: File 2, 4:15 -> 4:16 = #2
// CHECK-NEXT: File 3, 3:15 -> 3:16 = #3
// CHECK-NEXT: File 4, 4:15 -> 4:16 = #4