MaskRay added a comment. In D104556#2998091 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104556#2998091>, @catenacyber wrote:
> Thanks for the quick reply > >> I don't think this change is responsible. This has been tested by many C++ >> downstream groups. > > What did I do wrong ? > Adding this only commit makes the scenario fail. > >> Rust should use upgrade its lib/ProfileData and compiler-rt/lib/profile, and >> not mix raw profile files at different commits. > > I am not sure I understand. > What are raw profiles ? > In my scenario, only `llvm-profdata` acts on default.profraw > And before that, the linker, not the rust compiler, mixes together the > different coverage sections... > So, how would Rust mix raw profiles ? .profraw are files with the raw profile format. The compiler-rt/lib/profile runtime and llvm-profdata only support one version at any commit. Mixing .profraw files produced by different compiler-rt/lib/profile runtimes is unsupported. I don't know what rustc and https://github.com/ctz/rustls do. I don't think this change is responsible as the change has been well released/tested by many C++ groups. If Rust adapts compiler-rt and does something different, I think the investigation responsibility is on Rust's side. Perhaps you can get some help from rustc folks who do the compiler-rt adaptation in rustc. >> The binary ID change has caused a bit of churn to ProfileData but it is >> unrelated to this patch. > > Well, there may be other bugs, but this is not a problem in my scenario... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104556/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104556 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
