Sure, r276801.
Thanks,
Hans
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Vedant Kumar wrote:
> Thanks Justin!
>
> @Hans, could we take this for llvm 3.9 also?
>
> best,
> vedant
>
>> On Jul 26, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Justin Bogner wrote:
>>
>> Vedant Kumar via cfe-commits writes:
>>> Hi Justin,
>>>
>>> Could y
Thanks Justin!
@Hans, could we take this for llvm 3.9 also?
best,
vedant
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Justin Bogner wrote:
>
> Vedant Kumar via cfe-commits writes:
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> Could you take a look at this code coverage fix?
>>
>> It skips visiting decls if they would require cont
Vedant Kumar via cfe-commits writes:
> Hi Justin,
>
> Could you take a look at this code coverage fix?
>
> It skips visiting decls if they would require context from system headers to
> present properly. This prevents us from writing out an empty coverage mapping
> for the lambda in `assert([] { r
Hi Justin,
Could you take a look at this code coverage fix?
It skips visiting decls if they would require context from system headers to
present properly. This prevents us from writing out an empty coverage mapping
for the lambda in `assert([] { return true; }());`.
I think it would be a good id
