On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2014-May-28, at 15:55, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> ... I'll bite. >> >> Why do you want to know "this function wasn't instrumented" versus >> "this had no calls" for coverage? If it's not instrumented it's >> definitely not called. Otherwise you need to do this for all functions >> (and who knows what chaos with special member functions that you >> didn't have to create... :) > > I can think of two scenarios: > > 1. The error/warning messages should be different: "profile out of date" vs. > "foo() has no coverage".
This seems ok I guess. Though if you've got a binary you should be able to say "this code doesn't exist". > > 2. All you have is source and the profile data (i.e., a gcov-like flow, > without an AST), and you want to output the list of functions with no > coverage. You could just take the ones that you do have coverage info for and it's the inverse? In general I think forcing emission of things that aren't normally emitted is probably going to be a bit of a problem. -erc _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
