Sure, r276801.
Thanks,
Hans
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Vedant Kumar wrote:
> Thanks Justin!
>
> @Hans, could we take this for llvm 3.9 also?
>
> best,
> vedant
>
>> On Jul 26, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Justin Bogner wrote:
>>
>> Vedant Kumar via cfe-commits writes:
>>> Hi Justin,
>>>
>>> Could y
Thanks Justin!
@Hans, could we take this for llvm 3.9 also?
best,
vedant
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Justin Bogner wrote:
>
> Vedant Kumar via cfe-commits writes:
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> Could you take a look at this code coverage fix?
>>
>> It skips visiting decls if they would require cont
Vedant Kumar via cfe-commits writes:
> Hi Justin,
>
> Could you take a look at this code coverage fix?
>
> It skips visiting decls if they would require context from system headers to
> present properly. This prevents us from writing out an empty coverage mapping
> for the lambda in `assert([] { r
Hi Justin,
Could you take a look at this code coverage fix?
It skips visiting decls if they would require context from system headers to
present properly. This prevents us from writing out an empty coverage mapping
for the lambda in `assert([] { return true; }());`.
I think it would be a good id
Author: vedantk
Date: Mon Jul 25 19:24:59 2016
New Revision: 276716
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=276716&view=rev
Log:
[Coverage] Do not write out coverage mappings with zero entries
After r275121, we stopped mapping regions from system headers. Lambdas
declared in regions belongin
