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
a2c1211b6d
rust/tests/coverage/while.cov-map

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

13 lines
484 B
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: while::main
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 (24): 0x[01, 01, 00, 04, 01, 01, 01, 01, 10, 01, 02, 0b, 00, 14, 00, 00, 15, 02, 06, 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: Completely overhaul counter assignment, using node-flow graphs
2025-01-12 10:36:07 +00:00
Number of expressions: 0
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: 4
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 1, 1) 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, 11) to (start + 0, 20)
coverage: Tweak individual tests to be unaffected by `rustfmt` Some of these tests use non-standard formatting that we can simulate by strategically adding `//` line comments. One contains `where` clauses that would be split across multiple lines, which we can keep on one line by moving the bounds to the generic type instead.
2024-01-16 03:12:10 +00:00
- Code(Zero) at (prev + 0, 21) to (start + 2, 6)
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: 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
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