[PATCH] D100158: [SantizerCoverage] test case demonstrating PR39531

[Nick Desaulniers via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

nickdesaulniers added a comment.

In D100158#2678482 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100158#2678482>, @dblaikie wrote:

> My best guess would be that any call synthesized from an instruction without a location should probably just get a zero line scoped directly to the current function.

Sure. Should we do that unconditionally for the inserted `CallInst`, or predicate it on debug info being requested for the compilation, or something else?

> It's not ideal (not only the lack of location, but it also punches holes in scopes which can bloat debug info/make stepping more difficult as you hit discontiguous hunks of lines potentially, etc)

For the purpose of ModuleSanitizerCoveragePass, I think that's ok. Developers accept a large increase in binary size anyways using the most aggressive level of tracing every edge, and stepping in a debugger probably isn't the use case folks are intending when using ModuleSanitizerCoveragePass. I would think the major use case for debug info with coverage is to symbolicate traces.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D100158/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D100158