evodius96 wrote: Sorry for the silence -- the summertime is usually busy, we we just had July 4th holiday in the US.
> 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. I agree in general that this change works best with an opt-in option, and so functionally nothing is imposed on folks who don't want to incur the overhead. You've done a good job of characterizing that. However, I'm concerned about the challenges posed above to extending clang's baked-in region-based counter infrastructure (via `RegionCounterMap`) and would like to open this up more to encourage broader buy-in and also to solicit suggestions. So to that end, I agree with @justincady and @AaronBallman. I'm fairly confident we can arrive at a workable solution. I'd also like to get some suggestions from @chapuni since this impacts a lot of the work he extended. It would be good if you could take your [existing discussion and proposal](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/is-source-based-coverage-on-llvm-clang-being-actively-maintained/90918) and port that into an RFC and invite some comment. Referencing the existing PR, please summarizing clearly what the challenges are, and we'll go from there. I apologize that this process can be tedious, but I think it would be worth it in the long-run. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/201079 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
