ankurrj7 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).
Thanks for the suggestion. My impression was that this change is relatively self-contained with opt-in option and doesn't rise to the level of an RFC, but I'm happy to follow the maintainers' preference here. I'll defer to @evodius96 and @chapuni on whether they'd like to see an RFC first. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/201079 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
