vsk added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20878#446690, @ikudrin wrote:
> Is there a case where this patch makes things better than they were before?
> Is it possible to improve handling of exceptions instead?
This patch removes something which doesn't appear to serve a useful purpose. In
general, I don't see a way to handle stack unwinding well. Consider:
1| void f() {
2| may_throw();
3| may_throw();
4| return;
5|}
It would be prohibitively expensive to create separate regions and counters for
lines 3 and 4, and after every callsite of `f`, and all its callsites, etc. We
could improve the situation slightly by (1) documenting that stack unwinding is
not handled precisely, and/or (2) emitting a diagnostic if the TU contains a
`throw` statement. This would make the resulting coverage reports less
surprising to users.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20878
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
