gulfem added a comment. In D122336#3405835 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122336#3405835>, @davidxl wrote:
> Should this be fixed in Clang (not generating coverage record)? Adding the > logic here is a little confusing. @davidxl, I originally did that (not generating coverage records) because I think it is a cleaner way. But, after reading https://reviews.llvm.org/D43794, it's my understanding is that we might be generating coverage record for unused functions for TAPI. @vsk can clarify that. If there is no such restriction anymore, I can change that. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122336/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122336 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
