[PATCH] D16947: [PGO] assignment operator does not get profile data

[Xinliang David Li via llvm-commits]

I took a look at the problem. The implicitly defaulted operators
should not be instrumented as specified -- I actually I just added the
new test case for that (checking profile counter not generated) right
after my previous reply and it still passes with this patch. The
reason is that those operators have 'implicit' bit set, and profile
instrumentation in FE is implemented in two stages: 1) counter
assignment; 2) actual transformation.  For methods with implicit bit
set, step 1) is skipped as designed, so step 2) simply becomes a
no-op.

In short, the test case still needs explicit '=default', and the
implicit case is covered elsewhere.

thanks,

David

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:23 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> ha! somehow I kept thinking you are referring to implicit declared ctors.
>
>
> Ah, glad we figured out the disconnect - thanks for bearing with me!
>
>>
>>
>> From your test case, it is seems that the implicit copy/move op is
>> also broken and is fixed by this patch too. That means  a missing test
>> case to me.  Will update the case when verified.
>
>
> Again, this is a case where I'd probably just simplify the test, as I asked
> earlier in the thread (I asked if it mattered if the op was explicitly or
> implicitly defaulted (& your response: "> Is the fix/codepath specifically
> about explicitly defaulted ops?
>
> yes -- explicitly defaulted. There are some test coverage already for
> implicitly declared ctors (but not assignment op -- probably worth
> adding some testing too).")
>
> So I'd just simplify the test by removing the "= default" - I don't think
> there's value in testing both the explicit default and implicit default if
> it's just the default-y-ness that's relevant here. Otherwise we could end up
> testing all sorts of ways of writing/interacting with dtors which wouldn't
> be relevant to the code/fix/etc.
>
> This seems like the obvious test for the behavior:
>
> struct foo {
>   // non-trivial ops
>   foo &operator=(const foo&);
>   foo &operator=(foo&&);
> };
>
> struct bar {
>   foo f; // or derive bar from foo, but I think the member version is
> simpler
> };
>
> // force emission of bar's implicit special members, one way or another:
> bar &(bar::*x)(const bar&) = &bar::operator=;
> bar &(bar::*x)(bar&&) = &bar::operator=;
>
> (or just call them as you had in your test case - but that produces more
> code, etc in the module, extra functions/profile counters/etc)
>
> - Dave
>
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:05 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> >> > <davidxl at google.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> To be clear, you are suggesting breaking the test into two (one for
>> >> >> copy, and one for move) ? I am totally fine with that.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Nah, no need to split the test case - we try to keep the number of
>> >> > test
>> >> > files down (& group related tests into a single file) to reduce test
>> >> > execution time (a non-trivial about of check time is spent in process
>> >> > overhead).
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>   I thought you
>> >> >> suggested removing the testing of move/op case because they might
>> >> >> share the same code path (clang's implementation) as the copy/op.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I was suggesting that two cases is no big deal whether you test both
>> >> > or
>> >> > test
>> >> > one if they're the same codepath - if there were 5/many more things
>> >> > that
>> >> > shared the same codepath, I'd generally suggest testing a
>> >> > representative
>> >> > sample (possibly just a single one) rather than testing every client
>> >> > of
>> >> > the
>> >> > same code.
>> >> >
>> >> > Feel free to leave the two here as-is. (though if we're talking about
>> >> > test
>> >> > granularity, it's probably worth just putting these cases in the same
>> >> > file/type/etc as the ctor cases you mentioned were already covered)
>> >>
>> >> There is a balance somewhere:
>> >> 1) for small test cases like this, the overhead mainly comes from test
>> >> set up cost -- adding additional incremental test in the same file
>> >> probably almost comes for free (in terms of cost). However
>> >> 2) having too many cases grouped together also reduces the
>> >> debuggability when some test fails.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yep, for sure. In this case, testing the ctors and assignment ops in one
>> > file's probably not a bad tradeoff (you can see how Clang groups its
>> > tests -
>> > a file per language feature in many cases, exploring the myriad ways the
>> > feature can be used - this doesn't always work spectacularly (when you
>> > can't
>> > order the IR emission to happen mostly in the order that the source is
>> > written (rather being interleaved))
>> >
>> > Anyway, up to you - that part isn't something I'm terribly worried about
>> > either way.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > & I'm still curious/wondering if there's a common codepath that would
>> >> > provide a simpler fix/code that solved both implicit and explicitly
>> >> > defaulted ops.
>> >>
>> >> I may take a look at that when I find time -- but there is no guarantee
>> >> :)
>> >
>> >
>> > A quick test of putting "assert(false)" in
>> > emitImplicitAssignmentOperatorBody and running Clang over this code:
>> >
>> > struct foo {
>> >   foo &operator=(const foo &);
>> > };
>> >
>> > struct bar {
>> >   foo f;
>> > };
>> >
>> > auto (bar::*x)(const bar&) = &bar::operator=;
>> >
>> > Fires the assertion - this seems to me to indicate that the codepath you
>> > changed is used for both the explicitly (based on the change fixing your
>> > test case) and implicitly defaulted (based on my test case) cases.
>> >
>> > Is it possible that you end up with duplicate counters by accident in
>> > this
>> > path, then? Or at least that whatever codepath was handling the
>> > implicitly
>> > defaulted ones is now redundant with this one?
>> >
>> > Actually, so far as I can tell this doesn't work for implicitly
>> > defaulted
>> > move ops (the above test case doesn't have an add pgocount in it) -
>> > perhaps
>> > I'm missing something/doing it wrong? or was just not communicating
>> > clearly
>> > regarding explicit versus implicitly defaulted special members.
>> >
>> > - Dave
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> thanks,
>> >>
>> >> David
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > - Dave
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> thanks,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> David
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:52 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> >> >> > <davidxl at google.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:35 PM, David Blaikie
>> >> >> >> <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> >> >> >> > <davidxl at google.com>
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:17 PM, David Blaikie
>> >> >> >> >> <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> >> >> >> >> > <davidxl at google.com>
>> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:39 AM, David Blaikie
>> >> >> >> >> >> <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:25 AM, David Li via llvm-commits
>> >> >> >> >> >> > <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> davidxl updated this revision to Diff 47217.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> davidxl added a comment.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Simplified test case suggested by Vedant.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://reviews.llvm.org/D16947
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Files:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>   lib/CodeGen/CGClass.cpp
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>   test/Profile/def-assignop.cpp
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Index: test/Profile/def-assignop.cpp
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ===================================================================
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- test/Profile/def-assignop.cpp
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ test/Profile/def-assignop.cpp
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -x c++ -std=c++11 %s -triple
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -main-file-name def-assignop.cpp -o - -emit-llvm
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -fprofile-instrument=clang
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> | FileCheck --check-prefix=PGOGEN %s
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -x c++ -std=c++11 %s -triple
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -main-file-name def-assignop.cpp -o - -emit-llvm
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -fprofile-instrument=clang
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -fcoverage-mapping | FileCheck --check-prefix=COVMAP %s
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +struct B {
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  void operator=(const B &b) {}
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  void operator=(const B &&b) {}
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Probably best to make these canonical to avoid confusion:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > B &operator=(const B&);
>> >> >> >> >> >> > B &operator=(B&&);
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > (& they don't need definitions - just declarations)
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Will change.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Also, neither of these are the move /constructor/, just
>> >> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > move
>> >> >> >> >> >> > operator.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Not sure if Vedant just used the wrong terminology, or
>> >> >> >> >> >> > whether
>> >> >> >> >> >> > it's
>> >> >> >> >> >> > worth
>> >> >> >> >> >> > testing the move/copy ctors too, to check that they do
>> >> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > right
>> >> >> >> >> >> > thing
>> >> >> >> >> >> > as
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> I added tests for copy ctors, and plan to add move ctor
>> >> >> >> >> >> test
>> >> >> >> >> >> soon.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > well. (if all of these things use the same codepath, I
>> >> >> >> >> >> > don't
>> >> >> >> >> >> > see a
>> >> >> >> >> >> > great
>> >> >> >> >> >> > benefit in having separate tests for them (but you can
>> >> >> >> >> >> > add
>> >> >> >> >> >> > them
>> >> >> >> >> >> > here
>> >> >> >> >> >> > if
>> >> >> >> >> >> > you
>> >> >> >> >> >> > like) - I'm just suggesting a manual verification in case
>> >> >> >> >> >> > those
>> >> >> >> >> >> > need
>> >> >> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> >> >> > separate fix
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> the ctor and assignment op do not share the same path --
>> >> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> >> ctor
>> >> >> >> >> >> path
>> >> >> >> >> >> is working as expected without the fix -- or do you mean
>> >> >> >> >> >> there
>> >> >> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> >> >> no
>> >> >> >> >> >> need to cover both copy and move variants?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > I wouldn't necessarily bother testing multiple instances of
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > same
>> >> >> >> >> > codepath (so the copy and move ctor for example) - but 2
>> >> >> >> >> > instances
>> >> >> >> >> > is
>> >> >> >> >> > no
>> >> >> >> >> > big
>> >> >> >> >> > deal (if there were several more, I might be inclined to
>> >> >> >> >> > just
>> >> >> >> >> > test
>> >> >> >> >> > one
>> >> >> >> >> > as a
>> >> >> >> >> > representative sample). I don't mind either way, though. The
>> >> >> >> >> > number
>> >> >> >> >> > is
>> >> >> >> >> > small
>> >> >> >> >> > & the test cases are arguably distinct.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Sorry I disagree with your general statement here. I treat
>> >> >> >> >> such
>> >> >> >> >> test
>> >> >> >> >> cases as 'black box testing' that do not know about the
>> >> >> >> >> internal
>> >> >> >> >> implementation (code path). It may or may not share the same
>> >> >> >> >> code
>> >> >> >> >> path
>> >> >> >> >> today -- same is true in the future.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > While there's merit in both approaches, practically speaking it
>> >> >> >> > seems
>> >> >> >> > difficult to test in that way in general - any feature could
>> >> >> >> > interact
>> >> >> >> > with
>> >> >> >> > any other.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The language features are well specified -- so writing small test
>> >> >> >> cases to cover them is a general accepted way of testing.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm not sure I follow the distinction you're drawing between the
>> >> >> > middle
>> >> >> > end
>> >> >> > optimization tests and the features you're testing here. If the
>> >> >> > features
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > relatively independent, even within the same API/feature area,
>> >> >> > they're
>> >> >> > generally tested independently (even two features within a single
>> >> >> > middle
>> >> >> > end
>> >> >> > optimization - a test case is written to ensure that, say,
>> >> >> > ArgumentPromotion
>> >> >> > correctly handles debug info, and another that it correctly
>> >> >> > handles
>> >> >> > inalloca
>> >> >> > (or fp80, etc - just looking at test/Transforms/ArgumentPromotion)
>> >> >> > -
>> >> >> > but
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > don't test the matrix of combinations of these features)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >The LLVM regression suite is far more narrowly targeted than
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > - we don't test combinations of optimizations, for example - we
>> >> >> >> > test
>> >> >> >> > each
>> >> >> >> > optimization in isolation. The same would be true of two
>> >> >> >> > independent
>> >> >> >> > features on an interface such as this, I think.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This is a weakness of the test system -- a problem at a different
>> >> >> >> dimension.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If we want to have a discussion about the LLVM community testing
>> >> >> > methodology, that might be best taken up on llvm-dev (and
>> >> >> > clang-dev).
>> >> >> > But
>> >> >> > for now, I'd ask that tests in the lit regression suite are
>> >> >> > generally
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > isolated as possible and test one thing at a time.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +};
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +struct A {
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  A &operator=(const A &) = default;
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Is the fix/codepath specifically about explicitly
>> >> >> >> >> >> > defaulted
>> >> >> >> >> >> > ops?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> yes -- explicitly defaulted. There are some test coverage
>> >> >> >> >> >> already
>> >> >> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> >> >> implicitly declared ctors (but not assignment op --
>> >> >> >> >> >> probably
>> >> >> >> >> >> worth
>> >> >> >> >> >> adding some testing too).
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Hmm - are you sure there's no common codepath that would
>> >> >> >> >> > cover
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > explicitly defaulted or implicitly defaulted ops together in
>> >> >> >> >> > one
>> >> >> >> >> > go?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Sorry I am not sure what you mean here.
>> >> >> >> > Is there some part of Clang that is responsible for generating
>> >> >> >> > both
>> >> >> >> > implicitly defaulted and explicitly defaulted move/copy ops
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > could
>> >> >> >> > handle this case, rather than apparently handling the implicit
>> >> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> > explicit
>> >> >> >> > cases separately (it seems they're being handled separately if
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > implicit
>> >> >> >> > case worked before and you added code (rather than moving code)
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > fix
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > explicit case - it sounds like we now have two bits of code,
>> >> >> >> > one
>> >> >> >> > for
>> >> >> >> > implicit and one for explicit - perhaps there's a single bit of
>> >> >> >> > code
>> >> >> >> > that we
>> >> >> >> > could write that would handle both?)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The codegen paths are different -- otherwise as you commented,
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> implicit case would have been broken too.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Refactoring FE code to handle both is probably beyond the scope
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> this fix.  Having a good test case here will exactly help avoid
>> >> >> >> regression if that happens in the future.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> David
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > - David
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> David
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Or just any
>> >> >> >> >> >> > compiler-generated ones? (you could drop these lines if
>> >> >> >> >> >> > it's
>> >> >> >> >> >> > about
>> >> >> >> >> >> > any
>> >> >> >> >> >> > compiler-generated ones, might be simpler/more obvious
>> >> >> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> >> >> > it's
>> >> >> >> >> >> > not
>> >> >> >> >> >> > about
>> >> >> >> >> >> > the "= default" feature)
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Other compiler generated ones are handled differently.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> thanks,
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> David
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  // PGOGEN: define {{.*}}@_ZN1AaSERKS_(
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  // PGOGEN: %pgocount = load {{.*}}
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @__profc__ZN1AaSERKS_
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  // PGOGEN: {{.*}}add{{.*}}%pgocount, 1
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  // PGOGEN: store{{.*}}@__profc__ZN1AaSERKS_
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  A &operator=(A &&) = default;
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  // PGOGEN: define {{.*}}@_ZN1AaSEOS_
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  // PGOGEN: %pgocount = load {{.*}}
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @__profc__ZN1AaSEOS_
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  // PGOGEN: {{.*}}add{{.*}}%pgocount, 1
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  // PGOGEN: store{{.*}}@__profc__ZN1AaSEOS_
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  // Check that coverage mapping includes 6 function
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> records
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> including
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  // defaulted copy and move operators: A::operator=
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  // COVMAP: @__llvm_coverage_mapping = {{.*}} { { i32,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> i32,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> i32,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> i32
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> },
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> [5 x <{{.*}}>],
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  B b;
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +};
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +int main() {
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  A a1, a2;
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  a1 = a2;
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  a2 = static_cast<A &&>(a1);
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > An option, though not necessarily better, would be to
>> >> >> >> >> >> > just
>> >> >> >> >> >> > take
>> >> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > address
>> >> >> >> >> >> > of the special members:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > auto (B::*x)(const B&) = &bar::operator=;
>> >> >> >> >> >> > auto (B::*x)(B&&) = &bar::operator=;
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > In short, what I'm picturing, in total:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > struct A {
>> >> >> >> >> >> >   A &operator=(const A&);
>> >> >> >> >> >> >   A &operator=(A&&);
>> >> >> >> >> >> > };
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > struct B {
>> >> >> >> >> >> >   A a;
>> >> >> >> >> >> > };
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > auto (B::*x)(const B&) = &B::operator=;
>> >> >> >> >> >> > auto (B::*x)(B&&) = &B::operator=;
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Also, this test should probably be in clang, since it's a
>> >> >> >> >> >> > clang
>> >> >> >> >> >> > code
>> >> >> >> >> >> > change/fix.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  return 0;
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +}
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Index: lib/CodeGen/CGClass.cpp
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ===================================================================
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- lib/CodeGen/CGClass.cpp
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +++ lib/CodeGen/CGClass.cpp
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> @@ -1608,6 +1608,7 @@
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>    LexicalScope Scope(*this, RootCS->getSourceRange());
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +  incrementProfileCounter(RootCS);
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>    AssignmentMemcpyizer AM(*this, AssignOp, Args);
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>    for (auto *I : RootCS->body())
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>      AM.emitAssignment(I);
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> llvm-commits mailing list
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>