vsk abandoned this revision.
vsk added a comment.
I see your point that it isn't expensive to do a best-effort job here. I
updated docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.rst with a limitations section as per my
earlier comment.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20878
__
ikudrin added a comment.
I agree that it'd be expensive to put a new counter after each function call.
Even if there is no `throw` statement within a TU, called functions still may
raise exceptions.
Anyway, if we come across a `try` statement, we can guess that some exceptions
are expected and
vsk added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20878#446690, @ikudrin wrote:
> Is there a case where this patch makes things better than they were before?
> Is it possible to improve handling of exceptions instead?
This patch removes something which doesn't appear to serve a useful purpose.
ikudrin added a comment.
So, our tool isn't accurate in the case of throwing an exception. Is there a
case where this patch makes things better than they were before? Is it possible
to improve handling of exceptions instead?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20878
___
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: bogner, MaggieYi, phillip.power.
vsk added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
There are three possible scenarios when entering a CXXTryStmt:
1. No exceptions thrown.
2. An exception is thrown but caught by one of the handlers.
3. An exception is throw
