[clang] [llvm] [Coverage][MC/DC] Show uncoverable and unreachable conditions (PR #94137)
Alan Phipps via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Aug 21 07:56:42 PDT 2024
================
@@ -1128,15 +1132,22 @@ struct CounterCoverageMappingBuilder
BranchParams = mcdc::BranchParameters{ID, Conds};
// If a condition can fold to true or false, the corresponding branch
- // will be removed. Create a region with both counters hard-coded to
- // zero. This allows us to visualize them in a special way.
+ // will be removed. Create a region with the relative counter hard-coded
+ // to zero. This allows us to visualize them in a special way.
// Alternatively, we can prevent any optimization done via
// constant-folding by ensuring that ConstantFoldsToSimpleInteger() in
// CodeGenFunction.c always returns false, but that is very heavy-handed.
- if (ConditionFoldsToBool(C))
- popRegions(pushRegion(Counter::getZero(), getStart(C), getEnd(C),
- Counter::getZero(), BranchParams));
- else
+ bool ConstantBool = false;
+ if (ConditionFoldsToBool(C, ConstantBool)) {
+ if (ConstantBool) {
+ popRegions(pushRegion(TrueCnt, getStart(C), getEnd(C),
+ Counter::getZero(), BranchParams));
+ } else {
+ popRegions(pushRegion(Counter::getZero(), getStart(C), getEnd(C),
----------------
evodius96 wrote:
Since I added `FalseCount` (i.e. the 2nd Counter for CounterMappingRegion), I think overriding what hard "0" means for this purpose is fine. However, for `Count` (i.e. the 1st Counter for CounterMappingRegion), we ought to be sure that the hard "0" doesn't already mean something. I suspect that when used with the `BranchRegion` or `MCDCBranchRegion`, this is also fine.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94137
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list