[llvm-bugs] [Bug 109947] [llvm-cov][MC/DC][Qualification] Boolean Terms with == are not analyzed correctly for MCDC coverage

Wed, 25 Sep 2024 03:03:15 -0700

Issue 109947
Summary [llvm-cov][MC/DC][Qualification] Boolean Terms with == are not analyzed correctly for MCDC coverage
Labels new issue
Assignees
Reporter escherle-validas 
    # Boolean Terms with == are not analyzed correctly for MCDC coverage
## Criticality: HIGH
During qualification of MCDC coverage at Validas we found that
In the following example the term “(v0==v1) && v2” is not analyzed correctly.
the equals operator "==" takes two boolean inputs and produces a boolean output.
Therefore it has to be instrumented as well such that the impact from v0 to the result can be analyzed.
This results in a wrongly calculated MCDC coverage measured by LLVMCov.
Note: In plain C there is no native boolean type defined, therefore instrumentation is restricted to && and ||,
but for C++ and Rust the boolean type exists and therefore operators on it should be considered for MCDC coverage. 
The problem occurs within Rust and C++.

Rust example:
![EQ_one_atom_rust](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e4ab4981-65bb-4db4-8309-cab56fa6241a)
Source Code and generated Reports:
[Test_000007.zip](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/17128975/Test_000007.zip)

C++ example:
![EQ_one_atom_cpp](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/95fd44d0-4fe2-415d-90f1-88ea54d54316)
Source Code and generated Reports:
[Test_000007.zip](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/17129027/Test_000007.zip)




_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs

Reply via email to