Currently both True/False counts were folded. It lost the information,
"It is True or False before folding." It prevented recalling branch
counts in merging template instantiations.
In `llvm-cov`, a folded branch is shown as:
- `[True: n, Folded]`
- `[Folded, False n]`
In the case If `n` is zero, a branch is reported as "uncovered". This is
distinguished from "folded" branch. When folded branches are merged,
`Folded` may be dissolved.
In the coverage map, either `Counter` is `Zero`. Currently both were
`Zero`.
Since "partial fold" has been introduced, either case in `switch` is
omitted as `Folded`.
Each `case:` in `switch` is reported as `[True: n, Folded]`, since
`False` count doesn't show meaningful value.
When `switch` doesn't have `default:`, `switch (Cond)` is reported as
`[Folded, False: n]`, since `True` count was just the sum of `case`(s).
`switch` with `default` can be considered as "the statement that doesn't
have any `False`(s)".
`if constexpr` and `if consteval` conditional statements code coverage
should behave more like a preprocesor `#if`-s than normal
ConditionalStmt. This PR should fix that.
---------
Co-authored-by: cor3ntin <corentinjabot@gmail.com>
During the ISO C++ Committee meeting plenary session the C++23 Standard
has been voted as technical complete.
This updates the reference to c++2b to c++23 and updates the __cplusplus
macro.
Drive-by fixes c++1z -> c++17 and c++2a -> c++20 when seen.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D149553
Clang crashes when encountering an `if consteval` statement.
This is the minimum fix not to crash.
The fix is consistent with the current behavior of if constexpr,
which does generate coverage data for the discarded branches.
This is of course not correct and a better solution is
needed for both if constexpr and if consteval.
See https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54419.
Fixes#57377
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132723
Clang usually propagates counter mapping region for conditions of `if`, `while`,
`for`, etc from parent counter. We should do the same for condition of conditional operator.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95918
This is an enhancement to LLVM Source-Based Code Coverage in clang to track how
many times individual branch-generating conditions are taken (evaluate to TRUE)
and not taken (evaluate to FALSE). Individual conditions may comprise larger
boolean expressions using boolean logical operators. This functionality is
very similar to what is supported by GCOV except that it is very closely
anchored to the ASTs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84467
This casued assertions during Chromium builds. See comment on the code review
> Bug filled here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45757.
> Add comment to skipped regions so we don't track execution count for lines containing only comments.
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84208
This reverts commit abd45154bdb6b76c5b480455eacc8c75b08242aa and the
follow-up 87d725473380652bbe845fd2fbd9c0507a55172f.
Emit a gap area starting after the r-paren location and ending at the
start of the body for the braces-optional statements (for, for-each,
while, etc). The count for the gap area equal to the body's count. This
extends the fix in r317758.
Fixes PR35387, rdar://35570345
Testing: stage2 coverage-enabled build of clang, check-clang
llvm-svn: 319373
The area immediately after the closing right-paren of an if condition
should have a count equal to the 'then' block's count. Use a gap region
to set this count, so that region highlighting for the 'then' block
remains precise.
This solves a problem we have with wrapped segments. Consider:
1| if (false)
2| foo();
Without a gap area starting after the condition, the wrapped segment
from line 1 would make it look like line 2 is executed, when it's not.
rdar://35373009
llvm-svn: 317758
