zequanwu added a comment. For those test cases, I could either moving the comments inside a function to outside or change `CHECK-NEXT` to `CHECK`
In D83592#2148833 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83592#2148833>, @vsk wrote: > Before updating any tests, maybe it's worth doing a quick experiment with > comments placed in different contexts, to see whether adding these skipped > regions is really sufficient. For example, given: > > 1| for (auto x : collection) { > 2| // Explain the loop. > 3| } > > > The loop region covers lines 1-3. If we skip the comment range on line 2, > does an execution count from the loop region still get picked up? I'd expect > it to. It's possible that we need more information from the preprocessor > about whether the line is fully comment/whitespace-only. Here is what I got: $ clang -fcoverage-mapping -fprofile-instr-generate /tmp/a.c -Xclang -dump-coverage-mapping && ./a.out && llvm-profdata merge -sparse default.profraw -o a.profdata && llvm-cov show ./a.out -instr-profile=a.profdata main: File 0, 1:12 -> 6:2 = #0 File 0, 2:19 -> 2:25 = (#0 + #1) File 0, 2:27 -> 2:30 = #1 Gap,File 0, 2:31 -> 2:32 = #1 File 0, 2:32 -> 4:4 = #1 Skipped,File 0, 3:5 -> 3:15 = 0 1| 1|int main() { 2| 11| for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { 3| | // comment 4| 10| } 5| 1| return 0; 6| 1|} For those failed test cases, they are caused by extra `Skipped, File ...` lines which invalidate some `CHECK-NEXT`. I could either change `CHECK-NEXT` to `CHECK` or moving those checks inside function to above the function, since comments outside functions will not be tracked. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83592/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83592 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
