AaronBallman wrote: > However, I confess that I'm slightly concerned about adding another distinct > coverage mode in general. We should introduce such complexity with caution > and only when reasonably certain it cannot be solved with a mapping change > alone. That is, of course, nothing but my opinion. I cede completely to > @evodius96 and @chapuni in that regard.
Code coverage is not my area of expertise, but I share this concern -- this seems like something we'd usually have an RFC for visibility and to ensure there's sufficient community buy-in. However, I leave it to the judgement of @evodius96 and @chapuni whether they agree or not (maybe I see this as a bigger feature than they do). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/201079 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
