nordic-dev.net/rust
nordic-dev.net/rust
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git synced 2025-06-06 12:18:33 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
47573bf61e
rust/tests/coverage/yield.cov-map

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

57 lines
2.7 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: yield::main
coverage: Prefer to visit nodes whose predecessors have been visited
2024-12-05 07:57:17 +00:00
Raw bytes (94): 0x[01, 01, 05, 05, 00, 0d, 15, 0d, 11, 19, 1d, 25, 29, 10, 01, 07, 01, 01, 16, 01, 07, 0b, 00, 2e, 0d, 01, 27, 00, 29, 03, 01, 0e, 00, 34, 0d, 02, 0b, 00, 2e, 06, 01, 22, 00, 27, 11, 00, 2c, 00, 2e, 0a, 01, 0e, 00, 34, 11, 03, 09, 00, 16, 11, 08, 0b, 00, 2e, 21, 01, 27, 00, 29, 0f, 01, 0e, 00, 34, 21, 02, 0b, 00, 2e, 2d, 01, 27, 00, 29, 13, 01, 0e, 00, 34, 2d, 02, 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: Prefer to visit nodes whose predecessors have been visited
2024-12-05 07:57:17 +00:00
Number of expressions: 5
Enable by default.
2023-01-18 17:57:50 +00:00
- expression 0 operands: lhs = Counter(1), rhs = Zero
coverage: Prefer to visit nodes whose predecessors have been visited
2024-12-05 07:57:17 +00:00
- expression 1 operands: lhs = Counter(3), rhs = Counter(5)
- expression 2 operands: lhs = Counter(3), rhs = Counter(4)
- expression 3 operands: lhs = Counter(6), rhs = Counter(7)
- expression 4 operands: lhs = Counter(9), rhs = Counter(10)
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 file 0 mappings: 16
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 7, 1) to (start + 1, 22)
Manually run `x fmt` on all source files in `tests/coverage/` Currently we can't automatically enforce formatting on tests (see #125637), but we can at least keep things relatively tidy by occasionally running the formatter manually. This was done by temporarily commenting out the `"/tests/"` exclusion in `rustfmt.toml`, and then running `x fmt tests/coverage` and `x test coverage --bless`.
2024-05-29 04:27:57 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 7, 11) to (start + 0, 46)
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
- Code(Counter(3)) at (prev + 1, 39) to (start + 0, 41)
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(Expression(0, Add)) at (prev + 1, 14) to (start + 0, 52)
Enable by default.
2023-01-18 17:57:50 +00:00
= (c1 + Zero)
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(3)) at (prev + 2, 11) to (start + 0, 46)
coverage: Add an extra "transcribe" step after counter creation
2024-11-29 01:58:35 +00:00
- Code(Expression(1, Sub)) at (prev + 1, 34) to (start + 0, 39)
coverage: Prefer to visit nodes whose predecessors have been visited
2024-12-05 07:57:17 +00:00
= (c3 - c5)
- Code(Counter(4)) at (prev + 0, 44) to (start + 0, 46)
- Code(Expression(2, Sub)) at (prev + 1, 14) to (start + 0, 52)
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
= (c3 - c4)
coverage: Prefer to visit nodes whose predecessors have been visited
2024-12-05 07:57:17 +00:00
- Code(Counter(4)) at (prev + 3, 9) to (start + 0, 22)
- Code(Counter(4)) at (prev + 8, 11) to (start + 0, 46)
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
- Code(Counter(8)) at (prev + 1, 39) to (start + 0, 41)
coverage: Prefer to visit nodes whose predecessors have been visited
2024-12-05 07:57:17 +00:00
- Code(Expression(3, Add)) at (prev + 1, 14) to (start + 0, 52)
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
= (c6 + c7)
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(8)) at (prev + 2, 11) to (start + 0, 46)
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
- Code(Counter(11)) at (prev + 1, 39) to (start + 0, 41)
coverage: Prefer to visit nodes whose predecessors have been visited
2024-12-05 07:57:17 +00:00
- Code(Expression(4, Add)) at (prev + 1, 14) to (start + 0, 52)
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
= (c9 + c10)
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(11)) at (prev + 2, 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: c11
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: yield::main::{closure#0}
Manually run `x fmt` on all source files in `tests/coverage/` Currently we can't automatically enforce formatting on tests (see #125637), but we can at least keep things relatively tidy by occasionally running the formatter manually. This was done by temporarily commenting out the `"/tests/"` exclusion in `rustfmt.toml`, and then running `x fmt tests/coverage` and `x test coverage --bless`.
2024-05-29 04:27:57 +00:00
Raw bytes (14): 0x[01, 01, 00, 02, 01, 09, 08, 01, 10, 05, 02, 10, 01, 06]
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: 2
Manually run `x fmt` on all source files in `tests/coverage/` Currently we can't automatically enforce formatting on tests (see #125637), but we can at least keep things relatively tidy by occasionally running the formatter manually. This was done by temporarily commenting out the `"/tests/"` exclusion in `rustfmt.toml`, and then running `x fmt tests/coverage` and `x test coverage --bless`.
2024-05-29 04:27:57 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 9, 8) to (start + 1, 16)
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
- Code(Counter(1)) at (prev + 2, 16) to (start + 1, 6)
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: yield::main::{closure#1}
Manually run `x fmt` on all source files in `tests/coverage/` Currently we can't automatically enforce formatting on tests (see #125637), but we can at least keep things relatively tidy by occasionally running the formatter manually. This was done by temporarily commenting out the `"/tests/"` exclusion in `rustfmt.toml`, and then running `x fmt tests/coverage` and `x test coverage --bless`.
2024-05-29 04:27:57 +00:00
Raw bytes (24): 0x[01, 01, 00, 04, 01, 18, 08, 01, 10, 05, 02, 09, 00, 10, 09, 01, 09, 00, 10, 0d, 01, 10, 01, 06]
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: 4
Manually run `x fmt` on all source files in `tests/coverage/` Currently we can't automatically enforce formatting on tests (see #125637), but we can at least keep things relatively tidy by occasionally running the formatter manually. This was done by temporarily commenting out the `"/tests/"` exclusion in `rustfmt.toml`, and then running `x fmt tests/coverage` and `x test coverage --bless`.
2024-05-29 04:27:57 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 24, 8) to (start + 1, 16)
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
- Code(Counter(1)) at (prev + 2, 9) to (start + 0, 16)
- Code(Counter(2)) at (prev + 1, 9) to (start + 0, 16)
- Code(Counter(3)) at (prev + 1, 16) to (start + 1, 6)
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: c3
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