nordic-dev.net/rust
nordic-dev.net/rust
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git synced 2025-04-28 19:17:43 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
13b77c687c
rust/tests/coverage/closure_macro_async.cov-map

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

54 lines
2.2 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 11:29:41 +00:00
Function name: closure_macro_async::load_configuration_files
Stabilize noop_waker Co-authored-by: zachs18 <8355914+zachs18@users.noreply.github.com>
2024-11-16 01:42:09 +00:00
Raw bytes (9): 0x[01, 01, 00, 01, 01, 21, 01, 02, 02]
Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 11:29:41 +00:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
Number of expressions: 0
Number of file 0 mappings: 1
Stabilize noop_waker Co-authored-by: zachs18 <8355914+zachs18@users.noreply.github.com>
2024-11-16 01:42:09 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 33, 1) to (start + 2, 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
Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 11:29:41 +00:00
Function name: closure_macro_async::test
Stabilize noop_waker Co-authored-by: zachs18 <8355914+zachs18@users.noreply.github.com>
2024-11-16 01:42:09 +00:00
Raw bytes (9): 0x[01, 01, 00, 01, 01, 25, 01, 00, 2b]
Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 11:29:41 +00:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
Number of expressions: 0
Number of file 0 mappings: 1
Stabilize noop_waker Co-authored-by: zachs18 <8355914+zachs18@users.noreply.github.com>
2024-11-16 01:42:09 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 37, 1) to (start + 0, 43)
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
Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 11:29:41 +00:00
Function name: closure_macro_async::test::{closure#0}
Stabilize noop_waker Co-authored-by: zachs18 <8355914+zachs18@users.noreply.github.com>
2024-11-16 01:42:09 +00:00
Raw bytes (36): 0x[01, 01, 01, 01, 05, 06, 01, 25, 2b, 01, 21, 02, 02, 09, 00, 0f, 01, 00, 12, 00, 54, 05, 00, 54, 00, 55, 02, 02, 09, 02, 0b, 01, 03, 01, 00, 02]
Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 11:29:41 +00:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
coverage: Simplify counter expressions using simple algebra Some of these cases currently don't occur in practice, but are included for completeness, and to avoid having to add them later as branch coverage and MC/DC coverage start building more complex expressions.
2024-05-14 03:51:24 +00:00
Number of expressions: 1
Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 11:29:41 +00:00
- expression 0 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(1)
coverage: Extract hole spans from HIR instead of MIR This makes it possible to treat more kinds of nested item/code as holes, instead of being restricted to closures.
2024-07-01 03:29:54 +00:00
Number of file 0 mappings: 6
Stabilize noop_waker Co-authored-by: zachs18 <8355914+zachs18@users.noreply.github.com>
2024-11-16 01:42:09 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 37, 43) to (start + 1, 33)
coverage: Use hole spans to carve up coverage spans into separate buckets This performs the same task as the hole-carving code in the main span refiner, but in a separate earlier pass.
2024-06-03 07:15:50 +00:00
- Code(Expression(0, Sub)) at (prev + 2, 9) to (start + 0, 15)
coverage: Store each BCB's code regions in one coverage statement If a BCB has more than one code region, those extra regions can now all be stored in the same coverage statement, instead of being stored in additional statements.
2023-09-19 04:15:33 +00:00
= (c0 - c1)
coverage: Extract hole spans from HIR instead of MIR This makes it possible to treat more kinds of nested item/code as holes, instead of being restricted to closures.
2024-07-01 03:29:54 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 0, 18) to (start + 0, 84)
coverage: Store each BCB's code regions in one coverage statement If a BCB has more than one code region, those extra regions can now all be stored in the same coverage statement, instead of being stored in additional statements.
2023-09-19 04:15:33 +00:00
- Code(Counter(1)) at (prev + 0, 84) to (start + 0, 85)
- Code(Expression(0, Sub)) at (prev + 2, 9) to (start + 2, 11)
= (c0 - c1)
coverage: Simplify counter expressions using simple algebra Some of these cases currently don't occur in practice, but are included for completeness, and to avoid having to add them later as branch coverage and MC/DC coverage start building more complex expressions.
2024-05-14 03:51:24 +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: c1
Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 11:29:41 +00:00
Function name: closure_macro_async::test::{closure#0}::{closure#0}
coverage: Prefer to visit nodes whose predecessors have been visited
2024-12-05 07:57:17 +00:00
Raw bytes (35): 0x[01, 01, 03, 01, 05, 01, 0b, 05, 09, 05, 01, 14, 1c, 03, 21, 05, 04, 11, 01, 27, 02, 03, 11, 00, 16, 06, 00, 17, 00, 1e, 01, 02, 09, 00, 0a]
Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 11:29:41 +00:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
coverage: Make unexpansion of closure bodies more precise This improves the coverage instrumentation of closures declared in macros, as seen in `closure_macro.rs` and `closure_macro_async.rs`.
2024-01-22 01:49:58 +00:00
Number of expressions: 3
- expression 0 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(1)
coverage: Prefer to visit nodes whose predecessors have been visited
2024-12-05 07:57:17 +00:00
- expression 1 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Expression(2, Add)
coverage: Add an extra "transcribe" step after counter creation
2024-11-29 01:58:35 +00:00
- expression 2 operands: lhs = Counter(1), rhs = Counter(2)
coverage: Make unexpansion of closure bodies more precise This improves the coverage instrumentation of closures declared in macros, as seen in `closure_macro.rs` and `closure_macro_async.rs`.
2024-01-22 01:49:58 +00:00
Number of file 0 mappings: 5
Stabilize noop_waker Co-authored-by: zachs18 <8355914+zachs18@users.noreply.github.com>
2024-11-16 01:42:09 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 20, 28) to (start + 3, 33)
coverage: Make unexpansion of closure bodies more precise This improves the coverage instrumentation of closures declared in macros, as seen in `closure_macro.rs` and `closure_macro_async.rs`.
2024-01-22 01:49:58 +00:00
- Code(Counter(1)) at (prev + 4, 17) to (start + 1, 39)
- Code(Expression(0, Sub)) at (prev + 3, 17) to (start + 0, 22)
= (c0 - c1)
coverage: Prefer to visit nodes whose predecessors have been visited
2024-12-05 07:57:17 +00:00
- Code(Expression(1, Sub)) at (prev + 0, 23) to (start + 0, 30)
= (c0 - (c1 + c2))
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 2, 9) to (start + 0, 10)
Highest counter ID seen: c1
Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 11:29:41 +00:00
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink