[llvm-dev] Code coverage for member functions that are defined inside the class

[Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev]

Hm, that’s right, `main` will still get its own uninstrumented copy of `bar`. Perhaps instrumenting everything is the simplest path forward, or moving inline member functions defined in headers out-of-line.

vedant

> On Jun 4, 2020, at 6:20 PM, Chen, Yuanfang <Yuanfang.Chen at sony.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Vedant,
> 
> Thanks for the pointer. I gave the `-femit-all-decls` flag a try. It seems it makes foobar.o contain a copy of the instrumented `bar` but this copy of `bar` is not called anywhere else. Clients of `bar` will still get their own copy of instrumented `bar`(inlined or not). I checked the coverage report, the counter of `bar` is still 0. Right now, we're just instrumenting everything and filtering out non-interesting results.
> 
> - Yuanfang
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 11:11 AM
> To: Chen, Yuanfang
> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Code coverage for member functions that are defined     inside the class
> 
> Hey Yuanfang,
> 
> It seems like you’re looking for -femit-all-decls (https://godbolt.org/z/3uw-wF). This interoperates just fine with -fcoverage-mapping. Any duplicate coverage mapping records for functions emitted in multiple TUs will be merged by the linker.
> 
> best,
> vedant
> 
> On Jun 2, 2020, at 4:43 PM, Chen, Yuanfang via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> We have a user that wants to get the code coverage report for his library without turning on instrumentation for the library clients or change how they are built (only the library is instrumented). It seems like the inline member functions defined in headers are not instrumented in this case because the clients are not instrumented. The library itself does not have a copy of the inline methods either.
> 
> In below example,
> clang++ -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping -c foobar.cpp -o foobar.o
> clang++ main.cpp foobar.o -o foobar
> LLVM_PROFILE_FILE="foo.profraw" ./foobar
> llvm-profdata merge -sparse foo.profraw -o foo.profdata
> llvm-cov show ./foobar -instr-profile=foo.profdata
> 
> """
>   1|       |#include "foobar.h"
>   2|       |
>   3|       |
>   4|       |void FooBar::foo(void)
>   5|      1|{
>   6|      1|  printf("foo\n");
>   7|      1|}
>   8|       |
> """
> 
> 
> 
> foobar.h
> """
> #pragma once
> #include <stdio.h>
> 
> class FooBar {
> public:
>    void foo(void);
>    void bar(void) {
>          printf("bar\n");
>    }
> };
> """
> 
> foobar.cpp
> """
> #include "foobar.h"
> void FooBar::foo(void) {
>       printf("foo\n");
> }
> """
> 
> main.cpp
> """
> #include "foobar.h"
> int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) {
>   FooBar foobar;
>   foobar.foo();
>   foobar.bar();
>   return 0
> }
> """
> 
> My question are:
> - Is there an existing solution to this use case?
> - If not, is there a compiler switch to use when compiling foobar library to make inline function methods behave like an out-of-line non-inline function? (there are hundreds of inline function methods which makes doing this manually hard)
> - Is there some function attribute such as [[instrument-for-coverage]] to say: I want this function to be instrumented no matter what the command switches are? If not, is it a good idea?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> - Yuanfang
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>