summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/clang/test/CoverageMapping/switch.cpp
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2025-01-18[Clang] [NFC] Fix unintended `-Wreturn-type` warnings everywhere in the test ↵Sirraide
suite (#123464) In preparation of making `-Wreturn-type` default to an error (as there is virtually no situation where you’d *want* to fall off the end of a function that is supposed to return a value), this patch fixes tests that have relied on this being only a warning, of which there seem to be 3 kinds: 1. Tests which for no apparent reason have a function that triggers the warning. I suspect that a lot of these were on accident (or from before the warning was introduced), since a lot of people will open issues w/ their problematic code in the `main` function (which is the one case where you don’t need to return from a non-void function, after all...), which someone will then copy, possibly into a namespace, possibly renaming it, the end result of that being that you end up w/ something that definitely is not `main` anymore, but which still is declared as returning `int`, and which still has no return statement (another reason why I think this might apply to a lot of these is because usually the actual return type of such problematic functions is quite literally `int`). A lot of these are really old tests that don’t use `-verify`, which is why no-one noticed or had to care about the extra warning that was already being emitted by them until now. 2. Tests which test either `-Wreturn-type`, `[[noreturn]]`, or what codegen and sanitisers do whenever you do fall off the end of a function. 3. Tests where I struggle to figure out what is even being tested (usually because they’re Objective-C tests, and I don’t know Objective-C), whether falling off the end of a function matters in the first place, and tests where actually spelling out an expression to return would be rather cumbersome (e.g. matrix types currently don’t support list initialisation, so I can’t write e.g. `return {}`). For tests that fall into categories 2 and 3, I just added `-Wno-error=return-type` to the `RUN` lines and called it a day. This was especially necessary for the former since `-Wreturn-type` is an analysis-based warning, meaning that it is currently impossible to test for more than one occurrence of it in the same compilation if it defaults to an error since the analysis pass is skipped for subsequent functions as soon as an error is emitted. I’ve also added `-Werror=return-type` to a few tests that I had already updated as this patch was previously already making the warning an error by default, but we’ve decided to split that into two patches instead.
2024-12-19[Coverage] Resurrect Branch:FalseCnt in SwitchStmt that was pruned in ↵NAKAMURA Takumi
#112694 (#120418) I missed that FalseCnt for each Case was used to calculate percentage in the SwitchStmt. At the moment I resurrect them. In `!HasDefaultCase`, the pair of Counters shall be `[CaseCountSum, FalseCnt]`. (Reversal of before #112694) I think it can be considered as the False count on SwitchStmt. FalseCnt shall be folded (same as current impl) in the coming SingleByteCoverage changes, since percentage would not make sense.
2024-10-20[Coverage] Introduce "partial fold" on BranchRegion (#112694)NAKAMURA Takumi
Currently both True/False counts were folded. It lost the information, "It is True or False before folding." It prevented recalling branch counts in merging template instantiations. In `llvm-cov`, a folded branch is shown as: - `[True: n, Folded]` - `[Folded, False n]` In the case If `n` is zero, a branch is reported as "uncovered". This is distinguished from "folded" branch. When folded branches are merged, `Folded` may be dissolved. In the coverage map, either `Counter` is `Zero`. Currently both were `Zero`. Since "partial fold" has been introduced, either case in `switch` is omitted as `Folded`. Each `case:` in `switch` is reported as `[True: n, Folded]`, since `False` count doesn't show meaningful value. When `switch` doesn't have `default:`, `switch (Cond)` is reported as `[Folded, False: n]`, since `True` count was just the sum of `case`(s). `switch` with `default` can be considered as "the statement that doesn't have any `False`(s)".
2021-03-04Revert "Revert "[Coverage] Emit gap region between statements if first ↵Zequan Wu
statements contains terminate statements."" Reland with update on test case ContinuousSyncmode/basic.c. This reverts commit fe5c2c3ca682b140dd5e640e75948363b6b25ef9.
2021-03-04Revert "[Coverage] Emit gap region between statements if first statements ↵Nico Weber
contains terminate statements." This reverts commit 2d7374a0c680f96bdcdb3d05034a93bf145d140f. Breaks ContinuousSyncMode/basic.c in check-profile on macOS.
2021-03-03[Coverage] Emit gap region between statements if first statements contains ↵Zequan Wu
terminate statements. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97101
2021-01-05[Coverage] Add support for Branch Coverage in LLVM Source-Based Code CoverageAlan Phipps
This is an enhancement to LLVM Source-Based Code Coverage in clang to track how many times individual branch-generating conditions are taken (evaluate to TRUE) and not taken (evaluate to FALSE). Individual conditions may comprise larger boolean expressions using boolean logical operators. This functionality is very similar to what is supported by GCOV except that it is very closely anchored to the ASTs. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84467
2020-09-21[Coverage] Add empty line regions to SkippedRegionsZequan Wu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84988
2020-07-28Reland [Coverage] Add comment to skipped regionsZequan Wu
Bug filled here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45757. Add comment to skipped regions so we don't track execution count for lines containing only comments. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83592
2020-07-22Revert abd45154b "[Coverage] Add comment to skipped regions"Hans Wennborg
This casued assertions during Chromium builds. See comment on the code review > Bug filled here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45757. > Add comment to skipped regions so we don't track execution count for lines containing only comments. > > Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84208 This reverts commit abd45154bdb6b76c5b480455eacc8c75b08242aa and the follow-up 87d725473380652bbe845fd2fbd9c0507a55172f.
2020-07-21[Coverage] Add comment to skipped regionsZequan Wu
Bug filled here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45757. Add comment to skipped regions so we don't track execution count for lines containing only comments. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84208
2019-12-03[Coverage] Emit a gap region to cover switch bodiesVedant Kumar
Emit a gap region beginning where the switch body begins. This sets line execution counts in the areas between non-overlapping cases to 0. This also removes some special handling of the first case in a switch: these are now treated like any other case. This does not resolve an outstanding issue with case statement regions that do not end when a region is terminated. But it should address llvm.org/PR44011. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70571
2017-11-09[Coverage] Emit a gap area after if conditionsVedant Kumar
The area immediately after the closing right-paren of an if condition should have a count equal to the 'then' block's count. Use a gap region to set this count, so that region highlighting for the 'then' block remains precise. This solves a problem we have with wrapped segments. Consider: 1| if (false) 2| foo(); Without a gap area starting after the condition, the wrapped segment from line 1 would make it look like line 2 is executed, when it's not. rdar://35373009 llvm-svn: 317758
2017-09-08[Coverage] Precise region termination with deferred regions (reapply)Vedant Kumar
The current coverage implementation doesn't handle region termination very precisely. Take for example an `if' statement with a `return': void f() { if (true) { return; // The `if' body's region is terminated here. } // This line gets the same coverage as the `if' condition. } If the function `f' is called, the line containing the comment will be marked as having executed once, which is not correct. The solution here is to create a deferred region after terminating a region. The deferred region is completed once the start location of the next statement is known, and is then pushed onto the region stack. In the cases where it's not possible to complete a deferred region, it can safely be dropped. Testing: lit test updates, a stage2 coverage-enabled build of clang This is a reapplication but there are no changes from the original commit. With D36813, the segment builder in llvm will be able to handle deferred regions correctly. llvm-svn: 312818
2017-08-08[coverage] Special-case calls to noreturn functions.Eli Friedman
The code after a noreturn call doesn't execute. The pattern in the testcase is pretty common in LLVM (a switch with a default case that calls llvm_unreachable). The original version of this patch was reverted in r309995 due to a crash. This version includes a fix for that crash (testcase in test/CoverageMapping/md.cpp). Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36250 llvm-svn: 310406
2017-08-05Revert "[Coverage] Precise region termination with deferred regions"Vedant Kumar
This reverts commit r310010. I don't think there's anything wrong with this commit, but it's causing clang to generate output that llvm-cov doesn't do a good job with and the fix isn't immediately clear. See Eli's comment in D36250 for more context. I'm reverting the clang change so the coverage bot can revert back to producing sensible output, and to give myself some time to investigate what went wrong in llvm. llvm-svn: 310154
2017-08-04Revert "[coverage] Special-case calls to noreturn functions."Vedant Kumar
This reverts commit r309995. It looks like it's responsible for breaking the stage2 coverage build: http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/job/clang-stage2-coverage-R_build/1402 The cfe-commits discussion re: r309995 has more context. llvm-svn: 310019
2017-08-04[Coverage] Precise region termination with deferred regionsVedant Kumar
The current coverage implementation doesn't handle region termination very precisely. Take for example an `if' statement with a `return': void f() { if (true) { return; // The `if' body's region is terminated here. } // This line gets the same coverage as the `if' condition. } If the function `f' is called, the line containing the comment will be marked as having executed once, which is not correct. The solution here is to create a deferred region after terminating a region. The deferred region is completed once the start location of the next statement is known, and is then pushed onto the region stack. In the cases where it's not possible to complete a deferred region, it can safely be dropped. Testing: lit test updates, a stage2 coverage-enabled build of clang llvm-svn: 310010
2017-08-03[coverage] Special-case calls to noreturn functions.Eli Friedman
The code after a noreturn call doesn't execute. The pattern in the testcase is pretty common in LLVM (a switch with a default case that calls llvm_unreachable). Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36250 llvm-svn: 309995
2017-08-02[coverage] Make smaller regions for the first case of a switch.Eli Friedman
We never overwrite the end location of a region, so we would end up with an overly large region when we reused the switch's region. It's possible this code will be substantially rewritten in the near future to deal with fallthrough more accurately, but this seems like an improvement on its own for now. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34801 llvm-svn: 309901
2016-10-14[Coverage] Support for C++17 switch initializersVedant Kumar
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25539 llvm-svn: 284292