nordic-dev.net/rust
nordic-dev.net/rust
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git synced 2025-04-17 14:36:49 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
master
rust/tests/coverage/bad_counter_ids.cov-map

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

85 lines
3.0 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Normal View History

coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Function name: bad_counter_ids::eq_bad
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
Raw bytes (14): 0x[01, 01, 00, 02, 01, 24, 01, 02, 0f, 00, 03, 01, 00, 02]
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
Number of expressions: 0
Number of file 0 mappings: 2
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 36, 1) to (start + 2, 15)
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
- Code(Zero) at (prev + 3, 1) to (start + 0, 2)
coverage: Include the highest counter ID seen in `.cov-map` dumps When making changes that have a large impact on coverage counter creation, this makes it easier to see whether the number of physical counters has changed. (The highest counter ID seen in coverage maps is not necessarily the same as the number of physical counters actually used by the instrumented code, but it's the best approximation we can get from looking only at the coverage maps, and it should be reasonably accurate in most cases.)
2024-10-08 02:13:05 +00:00
Highest counter ID seen: c0
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Function name: bad_counter_ids::eq_bad_message
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
Raw bytes (19): 0x[01, 01, 00, 03, 01, 29, 01, 02, 0f, 01, 02, 20, 00, 2b, 00, 01, 01, 00, 02]
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
Number of expressions: 0
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Number of file 0 mappings: 3
Revert "Auto merge of #130766 - clarfonthey:stable-coverage-attribute, r=wesleywiser" This reverts commit 1d35638dc38dbfbf1cc2a9823135dfcf3c650169, reversing changes made to f23a80a4c2fbca593b64e70f5970368824b4c5e9.
2024-12-22 03:26:54 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 41, 1) to (start + 2, 15)
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 2, 32) to (start + 0, 43)
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
- Code(Zero) at (prev + 1, 1) to (start + 0, 2)
coverage: Include the highest counter ID seen in `.cov-map` dumps When making changes that have a large impact on coverage counter creation, this makes it easier to see whether the number of physical counters has changed. (The highest counter ID seen in coverage maps is not necessarily the same as the number of physical counters actually used by the instrumented code, but it's the best approximation we can get from looking only at the coverage maps, and it should be reasonably accurate in most cases.)
2024-10-08 02:13:05 +00:00
Highest counter ID seen: c0
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Function name: bad_counter_ids::eq_good
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
Raw bytes (14): 0x[01, 01, 00, 02, 01, 10, 01, 02, 0f, 01, 03, 01, 00, 02]
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
Number of expressions: 0
Number of file 0 mappings: 2
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 16, 1) to (start + 2, 15)
coverage: Eliminate more counters by giving them to unreachable nodes When preparing a function's coverage counters and metadata during codegen, any part of the original coverage graph that was removed by MIR optimizations can be treated as having an execution count of zero. Somewhat counter-intuitively, if we give those unreachable nodes a _higher_ priority for receiving physical counters (instead of counter expressions), that ends up reducing the total number of physical counters needed. This works because if a node is unreachable, we don't actually create a physical counter for it. Instead that node gets a fixed zero counter, and any other node that would have relied on that physical counter in its counter expression can just ignore that term completely.
2025-02-11 03:09:11 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 3, 1) to (start + 0, 2)
Highest counter ID seen: c0
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Function name: bad_counter_ids::eq_good_message
coverage: Eliminate more counters by giving them to unreachable nodes When preparing a function's coverage counters and metadata during codegen, any part of the original coverage graph that was removed by MIR optimizations can be treated as having an execution count of zero. Somewhat counter-intuitively, if we give those unreachable nodes a _higher_ priority for receiving physical counters (instead of counter expressions), that ends up reducing the total number of physical counters needed. This works because if a node is unreachable, we don't actually create a physical counter for it. Instead that node gets a fixed zero counter, and any other node that would have relied on that physical counter in its counter expression can just ignore that term completely.
2025-02-11 03:09:11 +00:00
Raw bytes (19): 0x[01, 01, 00, 03, 01, 15, 01, 02, 0f, 00, 02, 20, 00, 2b, 01, 01, 01, 00, 02]
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
Number of expressions: 0
Number of file 0 mappings: 3
Revert "Auto merge of #130766 - clarfonthey:stable-coverage-attribute, r=wesleywiser" This reverts commit 1d35638dc38dbfbf1cc2a9823135dfcf3c650169, reversing changes made to f23a80a4c2fbca593b64e70f5970368824b4c5e9.
2024-12-22 03:26:54 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 21, 1) to (start + 2, 15)
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
- Code(Zero) at (prev + 2, 32) to (start + 0, 43)
coverage: Eliminate more counters by giving them to unreachable nodes When preparing a function's coverage counters and metadata during codegen, any part of the original coverage graph that was removed by MIR optimizations can be treated as having an execution count of zero. Somewhat counter-intuitively, if we give those unreachable nodes a _higher_ priority for receiving physical counters (instead of counter expressions), that ends up reducing the total number of physical counters needed. This works because if a node is unreachable, we don't actually create a physical counter for it. Instead that node gets a fixed zero counter, and any other node that would have relied on that physical counter in its counter expression can just ignore that term completely.
2025-02-11 03:09:11 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 1, 1) to (start + 0, 2)
Highest counter ID seen: c0
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Function name: bad_counter_ids::ne_bad
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
Raw bytes (14): 0x[01, 01, 00, 02, 01, 2e, 01, 02, 0f, 00, 03, 01, 00, 02]
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
Number of expressions: 0
Number of file 0 mappings: 2
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 46, 1) to (start + 2, 15)
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
- Code(Zero) at (prev + 3, 1) to (start + 0, 2)
coverage: Include the highest counter ID seen in `.cov-map` dumps When making changes that have a large impact on coverage counter creation, this makes it easier to see whether the number of physical counters has changed. (The highest counter ID seen in coverage maps is not necessarily the same as the number of physical counters actually used by the instrumented code, but it's the best approximation we can get from looking only at the coverage maps, and it should be reasonably accurate in most cases.)
2024-10-08 02:13:05 +00:00
Highest counter ID seen: c0
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Function name: bad_counter_ids::ne_bad_message
coverage: Eliminate more counters by giving them to unreachable nodes When preparing a function's coverage counters and metadata during codegen, any part of the original coverage graph that was removed by MIR optimizations can be treated as having an execution count of zero. Somewhat counter-intuitively, if we give those unreachable nodes a _higher_ priority for receiving physical counters (instead of counter expressions), that ends up reducing the total number of physical counters needed. This works because if a node is unreachable, we don't actually create a physical counter for it. Instead that node gets a fixed zero counter, and any other node that would have relied on that physical counter in its counter expression can just ignore that term completely.
2025-02-11 03:09:11 +00:00
Raw bytes (19): 0x[01, 01, 00, 03, 01, 33, 01, 02, 0f, 01, 02, 20, 00, 2b, 00, 01, 01, 00, 02]
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
Number of expressions: 0
Number of file 0 mappings: 3
Revert "Auto merge of #130766 - clarfonthey:stable-coverage-attribute, r=wesleywiser" This reverts commit 1d35638dc38dbfbf1cc2a9823135dfcf3c650169, reversing changes made to f23a80a4c2fbca593b64e70f5970368824b4c5e9.
2024-12-22 03:26:54 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 51, 1) to (start + 2, 15)
coverage: Eliminate more counters by giving them to unreachable nodes When preparing a function's coverage counters and metadata during codegen, any part of the original coverage graph that was removed by MIR optimizations can be treated as having an execution count of zero. Somewhat counter-intuitively, if we give those unreachable nodes a _higher_ priority for receiving physical counters (instead of counter expressions), that ends up reducing the total number of physical counters needed. This works because if a node is unreachable, we don't actually create a physical counter for it. Instead that node gets a fixed zero counter, and any other node that would have relied on that physical counter in its counter expression can just ignore that term completely.
2025-02-11 03:09:11 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 2, 32) to (start + 0, 43)
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
- Code(Zero) at (prev + 1, 1) to (start + 0, 2)
coverage: Eliminate more counters by giving them to unreachable nodes When preparing a function's coverage counters and metadata during codegen, any part of the original coverage graph that was removed by MIR optimizations can be treated as having an execution count of zero. Somewhat counter-intuitively, if we give those unreachable nodes a _higher_ priority for receiving physical counters (instead of counter expressions), that ends up reducing the total number of physical counters needed. This works because if a node is unreachable, we don't actually create a physical counter for it. Instead that node gets a fixed zero counter, and any other node that would have relied on that physical counter in its counter expression can just ignore that term completely.
2025-02-11 03:09:11 +00:00
Highest counter ID seen: c0
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Function name: bad_counter_ids::ne_good
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
Raw bytes (14): 0x[01, 01, 00, 02, 01, 1a, 01, 02, 0f, 01, 03, 01, 00, 02]
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
Number of expressions: 0
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Number of file 0 mappings: 2
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 26, 1) to (start + 2, 15)
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 3, 1) to (start + 0, 2)
coverage: Include the highest counter ID seen in `.cov-map` dumps When making changes that have a large impact on coverage counter creation, this makes it easier to see whether the number of physical counters has changed. (The highest counter ID seen in coverage maps is not necessarily the same as the number of physical counters actually used by the instrumented code, but it's the best approximation we can get from looking only at the coverage maps, and it should be reasonably accurate in most cases.)
2024-10-08 02:13:05 +00:00
Highest counter ID seen: c0
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Function name: bad_counter_ids::ne_good_message
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
Raw bytes (19): 0x[01, 01, 00, 03, 01, 1f, 01, 02, 0f, 00, 02, 20, 00, 2b, 01, 01, 01, 00, 02]
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
Number of expressions: 0
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Number of file 0 mappings: 3
Revert "Auto merge of #130766 - clarfonthey:stable-coverage-attribute, r=wesleywiser" This reverts commit 1d35638dc38dbfbf1cc2a9823135dfcf3c650169, reversing changes made to f23a80a4c2fbca593b64e70f5970368824b4c5e9.
2024-12-22 03:26:54 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 31, 1) to (start + 2, 15)
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
- Code(Zero) at (prev + 2, 32) to (start + 0, 43)
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 1, 1) to (start + 0, 2)
coverage: Include the highest counter ID seen in `.cov-map` dumps When making changes that have a large impact on coverage counter creation, this makes it easier to see whether the number of physical counters has changed. (The highest counter ID seen in coverage maps is not necessarily the same as the number of physical counters actually used by the instrumented code, but it's the best approximation we can get from looking only at the coverage maps, and it should be reasonably accurate in most cases.)
2024-10-08 02:13:05 +00:00
Highest counter ID seen: c0
coverage: Regression test for #17012 (bad counter IDs in mappings)
2023-10-20 10:12:24 +00:00
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink