nordic-dev.net/rust
nordic-dev.net/rust
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git synced 2024-11-25 08:13:41 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
7fc2b33722
rust/tests/coverage/coroutine.cov-map

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

55 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Bless coverage map
2023-10-20 15:25:33 +00:00
Function name: coroutine::get_u32
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
Raw bytes (26): 0x[01, 01, 01, 01, 05, 04, 01, 0b, 01, 01, 0b, 05, 02, 09, 00, 0e, 02, 02, 09, 00, 28, 01, 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: 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)
Number of file 0 mappings: 4
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 11, 1) to (start + 1, 11)
coverage: Format all remaining tests These tests can simply be reformatted as normal, because the resulting changes are unimportant.
2024-01-16 02:52:08 +00:00
- Code(Counter(1)) at (prev + 2, 9) to (start + 0, 14)
- Code(Expression(0, Sub)) at (prev + 2, 9) to (start + 0, 40)
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
= (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 + 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: 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
Bless coverage map
2023-10-20 15:25:33 +00:00
Function name: coroutine::main
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 (65): 0x[01, 01, 08, 07, 0d, 05, 09, 11, 15, 1e, 19, 11, 15, 15, 19, 1e, 19, 11, 15, 09, 01, 13, 01, 02, 16, 01, 08, 0b, 00, 2e, 11, 01, 2b, 00, 2d, 03, 01, 0e, 00, 35, 11, 02, 0b, 00, 2e, 1e, 01, 22, 00, 27, 1a, 00, 2c, 00, 2e, 17, 01, 0e, 00, 35, 1a, 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: 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
Number of expressions: 8
coverage: Simplify building coverage expressions based on sums In some cases we need to prepare a coverage expression that is the sum of an arbitrary number of other terms. This patch simplifies the code paths that build those sums. This causes some churn in the mappings, because the previous code was building its sums in a somewhat idiosyncratic order.
2023-10-31 06:44:26 +00:00
- expression 0 operands: lhs = Expression(1, Add), rhs = Counter(3)
- expression 1 operands: lhs = Counter(1), rhs = Counter(2)
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
- expression 2 operands: lhs = Counter(4), rhs = Counter(5)
- expression 3 operands: lhs = Expression(7, Sub), rhs = Counter(6)
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 4 operands: lhs = Counter(4), rhs = Counter(5)
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
- expression 5 operands: lhs = Counter(5), rhs = Counter(6)
- expression 6 operands: lhs = Expression(7, Sub), rhs = Counter(6)
- expression 7 operands: lhs = Counter(4), rhs = Counter(5)
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: 9
coverage: Format all remaining tests These tests can simply be reformatted as normal, because the resulting changes are unimportant.
2024-01-16 02:52:08 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 19, 1) to (start + 2, 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 + 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(4)) at (prev + 1, 43) to (start + 0, 45)
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, 53)
coverage: Simplify building coverage expressions based on sums In some cases we need to prepare a coverage expression that is the sum of an arbitrary number of other terms. This patch simplifies the code paths that build those sums. This causes some churn in the mappings, because the previous code was building its sums in a somewhat idiosyncratic order.
2023-10-31 06:44:26 +00:00
= ((c1 + c2) + c3)
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(4)) at (prev + 2, 11) to (start + 0, 46)
- Code(Expression(7, Sub)) at (prev + 1, 34) to (start + 0, 39)
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
= (c4 - c5)
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(6, Sub)) at (prev + 0, 44) 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
= ((c4 - c5) - c6)
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(5, Add)) at (prev + 1, 14) to (start + 0, 53)
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
= (c5 + c6)
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(6, Sub)) at (prev + 2, 1) to (start + 0, 2)
= ((c4 - c5) - c6)
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: c4
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
Bless coverage map
2023-10-20 15:25:33 +00:00
Function name: coroutine::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, 16, 08, 01, 1f, 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 + 22, 8) to (start + 1, 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(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
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink