vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30131#684310, @arphaman wrote:
> LGTM.
>
> One point to note, when we are displaying coverage for constructors that have
> both the base and complete versions instrumented, e.g.:
>
> class Foo {
> public:
> Foo() { }
> };
>
> class Bar : virtual public Foo {
> public:
> Bar() { }; // llvm-cov will show 2 instantiations for Bar()
> };
>
> class BarBar: public Bar {
> public:
> BarBar() { }
> };
>
> int main (int argc, char* argv[])
> {
> BarBar b;
> Bar bb;
> }
>
>
> llvm-cov will treat each constructor as an instantiation (like a template
> instantiation). Should they be treated as instantiations though?
No, ideally we'd combine the coverage reporting for Bar's constructors, since
it's unlikely that users care about the distinction between them:
/tmp/x.cc:
1| |class Foo {
2| |public:
3| 2| Foo() { }
4| |};
5| |
6| |class Bar : virtual public Foo {
7| |public:
8| 2| Bar() { }; // llvm-cov will show 2 instantiations for Bar()
------------------
| _ZN3BarC2Ev: //< It doesn't help that these symbols demangle to
the same name..
| 8| 1| Bar() { }; // llvm-cov will show 2 instantiations for
Bar()
------------------
| _ZN3BarC1Ev:
| 8| 1| Bar() { }; // llvm-cov will show 2 instantiations for
Bar()
------------------
9| |};
10| |
11| |class BarBar: public Bar {
12| |public:
13| 1| BarBar() { }
14| |};
15| |
16| |int main (int argc, char* argv[])
17| 1|{
18| 1| BarBar b; // calls _ZN6BarBarC1Ev -> {_ZN3FooC2Ev,
_ZN3BarC2Ev} (leaves)
19| 1| Bar bb; // calls _ZN3BarC1Ev -> _ZN3FooC2Ev (leaf)
20| 1|}
I don't think this report is 'terrible' though. It's certainly better than
saying "BarBar"/"Bar" are executed 0/1 times, which is the status quo.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30131
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
