================
@@ -649,6 +649,24 @@ static void addPGOAndCoverageFlags(const ToolChain &TC,
Compilation &C,
}
}
+ if (auto *ColdFuncCoverageArg = Args.getLastArg(
+ options::OPT_fprofile_generate_cold_function_coverage,
+ options::OPT_fprofile_generate_cold_function_coverage_EQ)) {
+ SmallString<128> Path(
+ ColdFuncCoverageArg->getOption().matches(
+ options::OPT_fprofile_generate_cold_function_coverage_EQ)
+ ? ColdFuncCoverageArg->getValue()
+ : "");
+ llvm::sys::path::append(Path, "default_%m.profraw");
+ CmdArgs.push_back("-mllvm");
+ CmdArgs.push_back(Args.MakeArgString(
+ Twine("--instrument-cold-function-coverage-path=") + Path));
+ CmdArgs.push_back("-mllvm");
+ CmdArgs.push_back("--instrument-cold-function-coverage");
----------------
WenleiHe wrote:
These two flags seem duplicative. Path is guaranteed to be not empty here, so
the boolean flag seems unnecessary?
Relatedly, I know this might not be easy. But while it's convenient to accept a
new driver flag, I still kept wondering if we can communicate the single driver
flag to LLVM using existing and orthogonal flags as much as possible. Like this:
```
-fprofile-instrument-path= // reuse existing flag to communicate file path
-pgo-function-entry-coverage // reuse existing flag to communicate coverage only
-pgo-instrument-cold-function-only // add new flag to communicate cold function
only
```
I know that the current implementation has assumption when `InstrProfileOutput`
is not empty, but I still wonder is there a way recognize the use of these
three flags together, and special case for that.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109837
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
