RenjiSann wrote: > Thanks for submitting this! What you have here looks pretty straightforward. > Unless I've totally missed it, I don't see the `llvm-profdata` merging > capability handled or tested as we discussed on the discourse thread. I'd > like to see that in as well so that merging is handled in a sound way.
Hi, sorry for taking so long to come back to this. While implementing this patch, I realized `llvm-profdata` does not seem to read the coverage header of a `profraw` file, it just merges everything, so it doesn't know about the coverage level used, and I think this wouldn't be right to make `llvm-profdata` look into the actual data just for this case, when it's not supposed to. Furthermore, I don't think this is an issue, as it seem that in order to merge `profraw` files, they must have been produced by the same binary, so theoritically, you can't merge `profraw`s that have a different coverage level (or at least that's what I understood while trying, but I'm no expert here). Now, I thought about checking the available coverage level of instrumented object files in `llvm-cov` directly, but I was unsure about how to do it. The interface between llvm-cov and `CoverageMapping` loading takes all the object files in one call, and return a single CoverageMapping object, or an error. Right now, `CoverageMapping::load` fails and returns an error if it encounters an object file that does not meet the coverage level requirements. I could turn this error into a warning, but I am not certain anymore if we should drop the "available instrumentation level" of other provided object files. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/158059 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
