zequanwu added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CoverageMappingGen.cpp:942
pushRegion(Counter::getZero());
- auto &ZeroRegion = getRegion();
- ZeroRegion.setDeferred(true);
- LastTerminatedRegion = {EndLoc, RegionStack.size()};
+ if (!HasTerminateStmt) {
+ auto &ZeroRegion = getRegion();
----------------
vsk wrote:
> zequanwu wrote:
> > vsk wrote:
> > > What's supposed to be the difference between the zero region pushed after
> > > a `return;` vs. after a `break;`?
> > What I think is `DeferredRegion` is only used for `break;` and `continue`.
> > Other terminate statements like `return;`, `throw` etc will use the logic
> > in `VisitStmt` to emit gap region. So, I added this condition to separate
> > the two cases.
> What do you think of the notion of using the gaps inserted in VisitStmt to
> replace the whole deferred region system? Is it something that might be
> feasible (if perhaps out of scope for this patch), or do you see a
> fundamental reason it can't/shouldn't be done?
I think it is feasible. For break and continue, they only affect the statements
after them in the same block. For other terminate statements, they affect all
the statements after them even outside the block, see example below. Also
instead of emitting a zero gap region in VisitStmt, we need emit gap region
with (previous counter - current statement counter).
```
while (cond) {
...
break; // This affects statements' count until the end of the while body.
...
}
while (cond) {
...
return; // This affects statements' count until the end of the function body.
...
}
```
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D97101/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D97101
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
