Commit Graph

13 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Zequan Wu b46176bbb0 Reland [Coverage] Add comment to skipped regions
Bug filled here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45757.
Add comment to skipped regions so we don't track execution count for lines containing only comments.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83592
2020-07-28 13:20:57 -07:00
Hans Wennborg 238bbd48c5 Revert abd45154b "[Coverage] Add comment to skipped regions"
This casued assertions during Chromium builds. See comment on the code review

> Bug filled here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45757.
> Add comment to skipped regions so we don't track execution count for lines containing only comments.
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84208

This reverts commit abd45154bd and the
follow-up 87d7254733.
2020-07-22 17:09:20 +02:00
Zequan Wu abd45154bd [Coverage] Add comment to skipped regions
Bug filled here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45757.
Add comment to skipped regions so we don't track execution count for lines containing only comments.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84208
2020-07-21 17:34:18 -07:00
Vedant Kumar 859bf4d2be [Coverage] Emit a gap region to cover switch bodies
Emit a gap region beginning where the switch body begins. This sets line
execution counts in the areas between non-overlapping cases to 0.

This also removes some special handling of the first case in a switch:
these are now treated like any other case.

This does not resolve an outstanding issue with case statement regions
that do not end when a region is terminated. But it should address
llvm.org/PR44011.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70571
2019-12-03 12:35:54 -08:00
Vedant Kumar 2e8c875905 [Coverage] Emit a gap area after if conditions
The area immediately after the closing right-paren of an if condition
should have a count equal to the 'then' block's count. Use a gap region
to set this count, so that region highlighting for the 'then' block
remains precise.

This solves a problem we have with wrapped segments. Consider:

  1| if (false)
  2|   foo();

Without a gap area starting after the condition, the wrapped segment
from line 1 would make it look like line 2 is executed, when it's not.

rdar://35373009

llvm-svn: 317758
2017-11-09 02:33:38 +00:00
Vedant Kumar 747b0e2905 [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
2017-09-08 18:44:56 +00:00
Eli Friedman 181dfe4c92 [coverage] Special-case calls to noreturn functions.
The code after a noreturn call doesn't execute.

The pattern in the testcase is pretty common in LLVM (a switch with
a default case that calls llvm_unreachable).

The original version of this patch was reverted in r309995 due to a
crash. This version includes a fix for that crash (testcase in 
test/CoverageMapping/md.cpp).

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36250

llvm-svn: 310406
2017-08-08 20:10:14 +00:00
Vedant Kumar a7764adcbb Revert "[Coverage] Precise region termination with deferred regions"
This reverts commit r310010. I don't think there's anything wrong with
this commit, but it's causing clang to generate output that llvm-cov
doesn't do a good job with and the fix isn't immediately clear.

See Eli's comment in D36250 for more context.

I'm reverting the clang change so the coverage bot can revert back to
producing sensible output, and to give myself some time to investigate
what went wrong in llvm.

llvm-svn: 310154
2017-08-05 00:34:10 +00:00
Vedant Kumar 0b48042a65 Revert "[coverage] Special-case calls to noreturn functions."
This reverts commit r309995. It looks like it's responsible for breaking
the stage2 coverage build:

http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/job/clang-stage2-coverage-R_build/1402

The cfe-commits discussion re: r309995 has more context.

llvm-svn: 310019
2017-08-04 04:08:23 +00:00
Vedant Kumar 85e6dce1eb [Coverage] Precise region termination with deferred regions
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
llvm-svn: 310010
2017-08-04 00:29:20 +00:00
Eli Friedman 2d30c64ae3 [coverage] Special-case calls to noreturn functions.
The code after a noreturn call doesn't execute.

The pattern in the testcase is pretty common in LLVM (a switch with
a default case that calls llvm_unreachable).

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36250

llvm-svn: 309995
2017-08-03 22:27:36 +00:00
Eli Friedman 7f53fbfcdc [coverage] Make smaller regions for the first case of a switch.
We never overwrite the end location of a region, so we would end up with
an overly large region when we reused the switch's region.

It's possible this code will be substantially rewritten in the near
future to deal with fallthrough more accurately, but this seems like
an improvement on its own for now.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34801

llvm-svn: 309901
2017-08-02 23:22:50 +00:00
Vedant Kumar f2a6ec5521 [Coverage] Support for C++17 switch initializers
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25539

llvm-svn: 284292
2016-10-14 23:38:13 +00:00