[LLVMdev] asan coverage

[Bob Wilson]

On Feb 17, 2014, at 5:13 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
> Then my question: will there be any objection if I disentangle AsanCoverage from ASan and make it a separate LLVM phase with the proper clang driver support?
> Or it will be an unwelcome competition with the planned clang coverage?

I don’t view it as a competition, but assuming that we both succeed in our plans, LLVM would then end up with two very similar solutions for code coverage. Does it really make sense to have two?