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 11:07:42 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
7aab011dbb
rust/tests/coverage/loops_branches.cov-map

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

78 lines
4.3 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: <loops_branches::DebugTest as core::fmt::Debug>::fmt
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
Raw bytes (112): 0x[01, 01, 04, 07, 0b, 01, 0d, 05, 09, 09, 0d, 14, 01, 09, 05, 01, 10, 01, 02, 10, 00, 15, 00, 01, 17, 00, 1b, 00, 00, 1c, 00, 1e, 01, 01, 0d, 00, 0e, 01, 01, 0d, 00, 1d, 05, 00, 1e, 00, 1f, 00, 01, 10, 01, 0a, 0d, 03, 0d, 00, 0e, 09, 00, 12, 00, 17, 0d, 01, 10, 00, 14, 0d, 01, 14, 00, 19, 00, 01, 1b, 00, 1f, 00, 00, 20, 00, 22, 0d, 01, 11, 00, 12, 0d, 01, 11, 00, 21, 02, 00, 22, 00, 23, 00, 01, 14, 01, 0e, 0e, 03, 09, 00, 0f, 01, 01, 05, 00, 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
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
Number of expressions: 4
- expression 0 operands: lhs = Expression(1, Add), rhs = Expression(2, Add)
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
- expression 1 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(3)
- expression 2 operands: lhs = Counter(1), rhs = Counter(2)
- expression 3 operands: lhs = Counter(2), rhs = Counter(3)
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: 20
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 9, 5) to (start + 1, 16)
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, 16) to (start + 0, 21)
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(Zero) at (prev + 1, 23) to (start + 0, 27)
- Code(Zero) at (prev + 0, 28) to (start + 0, 30)
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, 13) to (start + 0, 14)
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 1, 13) to (start + 0, 29)
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(1)) at (prev + 0, 30) to (start + 0, 31)
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(Zero) at (prev + 1, 16) to (start + 1, 10)
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(3)) at (prev + 3, 13) to (start + 0, 14)
- Code(Counter(2)) at (prev + 0, 18) to (start + 0, 23)
- Code(Counter(3)) at (prev + 1, 16) to (start + 0, 20)
- Code(Counter(3)) at (prev + 1, 20) to (start + 0, 25)
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(Zero) at (prev + 1, 27) to (start + 0, 31)
- Code(Zero) at (prev + 0, 32) to (start + 0, 34)
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(3)) at (prev + 1, 17) to (start + 0, 18)
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
- Code(Counter(3)) at (prev + 1, 17) to (start + 0, 33)
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
- Code(Expression(0, Sub)) at (prev + 0, 34) to (start + 0, 35)
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
= ((c0 + c3) - (c1 + c2))
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(Zero) at (prev + 1, 20) to (start + 1, 14)
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
- Code(Expression(3, Sub)) at (prev + 3, 9) to (start + 0, 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
= (c2 - c3)
coverage: Completely overhaul counter assignment, using node-flow graphs
2025-01-12 10:36:07 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 1, 5) to (start + 0, 6)
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: 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
Function name: <loops_branches::DisplayTest as core::fmt::Display>::fmt
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
Raw bytes (112): 0x[01, 01, 04, 07, 0b, 01, 09, 05, 0d, 05, 09, 14, 01, 22, 05, 01, 11, 00, 01, 12, 01, 0a, 01, 02, 10, 00, 15, 00, 01, 17, 00, 1b, 00, 00, 1c, 00, 1e, 01, 01, 0d, 00, 0e, 01, 01, 0d, 00, 1d, 0d, 00, 1e, 00, 1f, 09, 02, 0d, 00, 0e, 05, 00, 12, 00, 17, 09, 01, 10, 00, 15, 00, 00, 16, 01, 0e, 09, 02, 14, 00, 19, 00, 01, 1b, 00, 1f, 00, 00, 20, 00, 22, 09, 01, 11, 00, 12, 09, 01, 11, 00, 21, 02, 00, 22, 00, 23, 0e, 03, 09, 00, 0f, 01, 01, 05, 00, 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
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
Number of expressions: 4
- expression 0 operands: lhs = Expression(1, Add), rhs = Expression(2, Add)
- expression 1 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(2)
- expression 2 operands: lhs = Counter(1), rhs = Counter(3)
- expression 3 operands: lhs = Counter(1), rhs = Counter(2)
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: 20
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 34, 5) to (start + 1, 17)
- Code(Zero) at (prev + 1, 18) to (start + 1, 10)
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, 16) to (start + 0, 21)
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(Zero) at (prev + 1, 23) to (start + 0, 27)
- Code(Zero) at (prev + 0, 28) to (start + 0, 30)
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, 13) to (start + 0, 14)
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 1, 13) to (start + 0, 29)
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
- Code(Counter(3)) at (prev + 0, 30) to (start + 0, 31)
- Code(Counter(2)) at (prev + 2, 13) to (start + 0, 14)
- Code(Counter(1)) at (prev + 0, 18) to (start + 0, 23)
- Code(Counter(2)) at (prev + 1, 16) to (start + 0, 21)
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(Zero) at (prev + 0, 22) to (start + 1, 14)
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
- Code(Counter(2)) at (prev + 2, 20) to (start + 0, 25)
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(Zero) at (prev + 1, 27) to (start + 0, 31)
- Code(Zero) at (prev + 0, 32) to (start + 0, 34)
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
- Code(Counter(2)) at (prev + 1, 17) to (start + 0, 18)
coverage: Don't split bang-macro spans, just truncate them
2025-03-25 11:02:22 +00:00
- Code(Counter(2)) at (prev + 1, 17) to (start + 0, 33)
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +00:00
- Code(Expression(0, Sub)) at (prev + 0, 34) to (start + 0, 35)
= ((c0 + c2) - (c1 + c3))
- Code(Expression(3, Sub)) at (prev + 3, 9) to (start + 0, 15)
= (c1 - c2)
coverage: Completely overhaul counter assignment, using node-flow graphs
2025-01-12 10:36:07 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 1, 5) to (start + 0, 6)
coverage: Don't create counters for code that was removed by MIR opts
2025-01-25 07:24:02 +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
Function name: loops_branches::main
Raw bytes (9): 0x[01, 01, 00, 01, 01, 37, 01, 05, 02]
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
Number of expressions: 0
Number of file 0 mappings: 1
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 55, 1) to (start + 5, 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
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink