bolshakov-a wrote:
Thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/1
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/efriedma-quic closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/1
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
bolshakov-a wrote:
Could you please merge both of these?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/1
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/efriedma-quic approved this pull request.
LGTM.
I'm not completely convinced by your argument here... but let's try to move
forward and land this and #88898 so we can do the refactor to use isUnique().
Then we can revisit later if necessary.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-pr
bolshakov-a wrote:
This looks like supporting my words:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19-init/clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenPGO.cpp#L935-L936
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/1
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.
bolshakov-a wrote:
@efriedma-quic ping. CC @AaronBallman
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/1
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
bolshakov-a wrote:
@efriedma-quic, would it be OK to add "subexpression" visitation with a comment
that I'm not sure that it is actually needed?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/1
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
ht
bolshakov-a wrote:
> But anyway, I think we end up doing the right thing automatically if you
> ignore non-unique OpaqueValueExprs.
The problem is that there is no initializing "common expression" in the AST
besides non-unique `OpaqueValueExpr`, hence some code handling
`ArrayInitLoopExpr` sh
https://github.com/bolshakov-a updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/1
>From a025b2a45c2a66595c111262dd43c0890f0d54b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bolshakov
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:21:40 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [Coverage] Handle array decomposition correctly
`ArrayInitLo
bolshakov-a wrote:
I don't see any difference on your example (with `main()` and function
definitions added) with and without my patch neither in the dumped coverage
mapping nor in the output of `llvm-cov show ... --show-branches=count
--show-expansions -show-line-counts-or-regions` command. I
efriedma-quic wrote:
Say you have:
```
int foo();
struct A { A(); A(const A&, int = foo()); };
struct B { A a[10]; };
void f(const B& b) { B bb = b; }
```
We want to visit the call to foo(), I think?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/1
__
bolshakov-a wrote:
Honestly, I'm not very familiar with code coverage technique, but it seems to
me that only explicitly written code is relevant for that. "Common expression"
is exactly the explicitly written part. "Subexpression" is an implicitly
generated per-element initializer which refer
efriedma-quic wrote:
I don't think this works correctly? You need to evaluate both the
getCommonExpr(), and the getSubExpr().
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/1
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.o
https://github.com/bolshakov-a edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/1
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Andrey Ali Khan Bolshakov (bolshakov-a)
Changes
`ArrayInitLoopExpr` AST node has two occurences of its as-written initializing
expression in its subexpressions through a non-unique `OpaqueValueExpr`. It
causes double-visiting of the initi
https://github.com/bolshakov-a created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/1
`ArrayInitLoopExpr` AST node has two occurences of its as-written initializing
expression in its subexpressions through a non-unique `OpaqueValueExpr`. It
causes double-visiting of the initializing expressio
16 matches
Mail list logo
