[PATCH] Code coverage mapping generation that enables coverage using the instrumentation based profiling
Alex L
arphaman at gmail.com
Mon Aug 4 10:56:56 PDT 2014
Thanks, I'll fix #1 and remove the tests and will commit it then.
2014-08-04 10:53 GMT-07:00 Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com>:
> Two comments:
>
> 1) For all the places where you are adding a new “CoverageInfo” argument
> to an existing function, please put that at the end of the argument list
> and provide a default nullptr value (at least where that makes sense). This
> will help to avoid breaking out-of-tree code using those functions.
>
> 2) I’d prefer to have test cases that directly test the mapping info
> emitted by clang. We can do that after the llvm-cov changes are committed.
> Let’s go ahead and commit this without the tests (but after you fix #1
> above), and then we can add the tests in a follow-up commit.
>
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Updated patch that uses the new coverage namespace.
>
>
> 2014-07-21 10:09 GMT-07:00 Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com>:
>
>> Updated patch with renamed coverage mapping variable and
>> -fcoverage-mapping option.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-07-18 17:40 GMT-07:00 Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com>:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 18, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-07-18 17:34 GMT-07:00 Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-07-18 14:23 GMT-07:00 Argyrios Kyrtzidis <kyrtzidis at apple.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> CodeGenABITypes::CodeGenABITypes(ASTContext &C,
>>>>> llvm::Module &M,
>>>>> - const llvm::DataLayout &TD)
>>>>> + const llvm::DataLayout &TD,
>>>>> + CoverageSourceInfo &CoverageInfo)
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn’t this be optional pointer ("CoverageSourceInfo *CoverageInfo
>>>>> = nullptr”) that will receive an object only when ‘ProfileInstrGenerate’
>>>>> option is enabled ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is a good idea. I've updated the patch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two new comments:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Can you rename the variable used to hold the coverage mapping from
>>>> “__llvm_covmapping” to “__llvm_coverage_mapping”?
>>>>
>>>> 2) I think it would be good to put this under control of an
>>>> “experimental” command line option while we refine the details. We don’t
>>>> want to break anyone using -fprofile-instr-generate, and leaving it
>>>> disabled by default would also make it clear that this is still a work in
>>>> progress
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about '-fcoverage-mapping-generate'?
>>>
>>>
>>> Here I am asking for more verbose variable name (see above), but that
>>> seems unnecessarily long to me. How about shortening it to
>>> “-fcoverage-mapping”?
>>>
>>> You should also add a check to make sure it is only used with
>>> -fprofile-instr-generate.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the updated patch with the applied fixes, addition of
>>>>> CoverageSourceInfo and the usage of one section for all of the coverage
>>>>> mapping down.
>>>>> Alex
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2014-07-18 13:43 GMT-07:00 Argyrios Kyrtzidis <kyrtzidis at apple.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds good to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 18, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 'CoverageSourceInfo' class that stores the skipped ranges is not
>>>>>> a good approach because when the llvm codegenerator is created the
>>>>>> preprocessing record doesn't actually have the skipped ranges as they
>>>>>> aren't reached by the lexer yet.
>>>>>> What about this: the 'CoverageSourceInfo' derives from PPCallbacks
>>>>>> and stores it's own source ranges instead of relying on the preprocessing
>>>>>> record. I think that this might be an even better approach as
>>>>>> lib/Frontend/CompilerInstance.cpp wouldn't have to be modified.
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2014-07-18 12:06 GMT-07:00 Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2014-07-18 11:47 GMT-07:00 Argyrios Kyrtzidis <kyrtzidis at apple.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > On Jul 8, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > I've attached a patch with the initial implementation of the
>>>>>>>>> code coverage mapping generation that
>>>>>>>>> > enables code coverage analysis which uses the data obtained from
>>>>>>>>> the instrumentation based profiling.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > I've sent out the patches for the coverage mapping format
>>>>>>>>> library and the updated coverage tool in separate threads.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> > Alex
>>>>>>>>> > <clangCoverageMapping.patch>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This looks really nice! It is obviously blocked by getting the
>>>>>>>>> llvm changes in, but it is otherwise mostly ready to commit. I just have a
>>>>>>>>> few small comments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you have to propagate the Preprocessor
>>>>>>>>> through a bunch of code to make it available in CodeGen. I can’t think of
>>>>>>>>> any good alternative, though. It would be good to get someone more familiar
>>>>>>>>> with the overall structure of the front-end to review that part.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed. That seems sort of funky. Does the code use anything other
>>>>>>>> than the PreprocessingRecord? Could we just pass that down instead of the
>>>>>>>> full Preprocessor?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like only SkippedRanges are used from the
>>>>>>>> PreprocessingRecord. Could we have something like ‘CoverageSourceInfo’
>>>>>>>> class containing the SkippedRanges (and anything else useful) and thread
>>>>>>>> this through to CodeGen ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, only the SkippedRanges are used. A separate class like
>>>>>>> 'CoverageSourceInfo' sounds like a good idea, I will pass it instead of the
>>>>>>> preprocesor to CodeGen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Notwithstanding my suggestion, someone with better knowledge of the
>>>>>>>> layering here should sign off before this gets committed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also noticed that you are adding a number of functions that
>>>>>>>>> don’t follow the naming convention of starting with a lowercase letter. I
>>>>>>>>> know there is a lot of code in clang that doesn’t follow that convention,
>>>>>>>>> and perhaps you are doing it that way on purpose to be consistent, but
>>>>>>>>> please review all the new function names and follow the coding standard,
>>>>>>>>> except for any cases where it clearly makes more sense to match the
>>>>>>>>> existing code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > @@ -807,6 +848,17 @@ static void emitRuntimeHook(CodeGenModule
>>>>>>>>> &CGM) {
>>>>>>>>> > CGM.addUsedGlobal(User);
>>>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > +void CodeGenPGO::checkGlobalDecl(GlobalDecl GD) {
>>>>>>>>> > + // Make sure we only emit coverage mapping for one
>>>>>>>>> > + // constructor/destructor
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please elaborate on this comment to explain why it is an issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > + if ((isa<CXXConstructorDecl>(GD.getDecl()) &&
>>>>>>>>> > + GD.getCtorType() != Ctor_Base) ||
>>>>>>>>> > + (isa<CXXDestructorDecl>(GD.getDecl()) &&
>>>>>>>>> > + GD.getDtorType() != Dtor_Base)) {
>>>>>>>>> > + SkipCoverageMapping = true;
>>>>>>>>> > + }
>>>>>>>>> > +}
>>>>>>>>> > +
>>>>>>>>> > void CodeGenPGO::assignRegionCounters(const Decl *D,
>>>>>>>>> llvm::Function *Fn) {
>>>>>>>>> > bool InstrumentRegions =
>>>>>>>>> CGM.getCodeGenOpts().ProfileInstrGenerate;
>>>>>>>>> > llvm::IndexedInstrProfReader *PGOReader = CGM.getPGOReader();
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/CoverageMappingGen.cpp
>>>>>>>>> b/lib/CodeGen/CoverageMappingGen.cpp
>>>>>>>>> > new file mode 100644
>>>>>>>>> > index 0000000..ed65660
>>>>>>>>> > --- /dev/null
>>>>>>>>> > +++ b/lib/CodeGen/CoverageMappingGen.cpp
>>>>>>>>> > @@ -0,0 +1,1178 @@
>>>>>>>>> > +//===--- CoverageMappingGen.cpp - Coverage mapping generation
>>>>>>>>> ---*- C++ -*-===//
>>>>>>>>> > +//
>>>>>>>>> > +// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
>>>>>>>>> > +//
>>>>>>>>> > +// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois
>>>>>>>>> Open Source
>>>>>>>>> > +// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
>>>>>>>>> > +//
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> +//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
>>>>>>>>> > +//
>>>>>>>>> > +// Instrumentation-based code coverage mapping generator
>>>>>>>>> > +//
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> +//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
>>>>>>>>> > +
>>>>>>>>> > +#include "CoverageMappingGen.h"
>>>>>>>>> > +#include "CodeGenFunction.h"
>>>>>>>>> > +#include "clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don’t see any direct use of RecursiveASTVisitor in this file. Is
>>>>>>>>> this #include really needed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > +/// \brief A StmtVisitor that creates unreachable coverage
>>>>>>>>> regions for the
>>>>>>>>> > +/// functions that are not emitted.
>>>>>>>>> > +struct EmptyCoverageMappingBuilder : public
>>>>>>>>> CoverageMappingBuilder {
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The comment is wrong — this is not actually a StmtVisitor.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> …
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > +/// \brief A StmtVisitor that creates coverage mapping regions
>>>>>>>>> maps the
>>>>>>>>> > +/// source code locations to PGO counters.
>>>>>>>>> > +struct CounterCoverageMappingBuilder
>>>>>>>>> > + : public CoverageMappingBuilder,
>>>>>>>>> > + public ConstStmtVisitor<CounterCoverageMappingBuilder> {
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The comment here isn’t a proper sentence. Maybe you intended
>>>>>>>>> “maps” to be “that map”?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The rest of this patch looks really good to me.
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>>>>>>>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>>>>>>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> <clangCoverageMapping.patch>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <clangCoverageMapping.patch>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> <clangCoverageMapping.patch>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140804/9b52c55c/attachment.html>
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list