nordic-dev.net/rust
nordic-dev.net/rust
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git synced 2025-04-29 11:37:39 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
c765480efe
rust/tests/coverage/yield.cov-map

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

63 lines
3.1 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
Enable by default.
2023-01-18 17:57:50 +00:00
Raw bytes (106): 0x[01, 01, 0b, 05, 00, 0d, 11, 22, 15, 0d, 11, 11, 15, 22, 15, 0d, 11, 22, 15, 0d, 11, 19, 1d, 25, 29, 10, 01, 07, 01, 01, 16, 01, 06, 0b, 00, 2e, 0d, 01, 27, 00, 29, 03, 01, 0e, 00, 34, 0d, 02, 0b, 00, 2e, 22, 01, 22, 00, 27, 1e, 00, 2c, 00, 2e, 13, 01, 0e, 00, 34, 1e, 03, 09, 00, 16, 1e, 07, 0b, 00, 2e, 21, 01, 27, 00, 29, 27, 01, 0e, 00, 34, 21, 02, 0b, 00, 2e, 2d, 01, 27, 00, 29, 2b, 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: 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: 11
Enable by default.
2023-01-18 17:57:50 +00:00
- expression 0 operands: lhs = Counter(1), rhs = 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
- expression 1 operands: lhs = Counter(3), rhs = Counter(4)
- expression 2 operands: lhs = Expression(8, Sub), 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
- expression 3 operands: lhs = Counter(3), rhs = Counter(4)
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 4 operands: lhs = Counter(4), rhs = Counter(5)
- expression 5 operands: lhs = Expression(8, Sub), rhs = Counter(5)
- expression 6 operands: lhs = Counter(3), rhs = Counter(4)
- expression 7 operands: lhs = Expression(8, Sub), rhs = Counter(5)
- expression 8 operands: lhs = Counter(3), rhs = Counter(4)
- expression 9 operands: lhs = Counter(6), rhs = Counter(7)
- expression 10 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)
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(0)) at (prev + 6, 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)
- Code(Expression(8, 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
= (c3 - c4)
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(7, 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
= ((c3 - 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(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
= (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(7, Sub)) at (prev + 3, 9) to (start + 0, 22)
= ((c3 - c4) - c5)
- Code(Expression(7, Sub)) at (prev + 7, 11) to (start + 0, 46)
= ((c3 - c4) - c5)
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: 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(9, 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: 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(10, 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)
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}
Error on using `yield` without also using `#[coroutine]` on the closure And suggest adding the `#[coroutine]` to the closure
2024-04-11 13:15:34 +00:00
Raw bytes (14): 0x[01, 01, 00, 02, 01, 08, 29, 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
Error on using `yield` without also using `#[coroutine]` on the closure And suggest adding the `#[coroutine]` to the closure
2024-04-11 13:15:34 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 8, 41) 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)
Function name: yield::main::{closure#1}
Error on using `yield` without also using `#[coroutine]` on the closure And suggest adding the `#[coroutine]` to the closure
2024-04-11 13:15:34 +00:00
Raw bytes (24): 0x[01, 01, 00, 04, 01, 16, 29, 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
Error on using `yield` without also using `#[coroutine]` on the closure And suggest adding the `#[coroutine]` to the closure
2024-04-11 13:15:34 +00:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 22, 41) 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)
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink