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 19:17:43 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
ff0a5fe975
rust/tests/coverage/continue.cov-map

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

76 lines
4.4 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: continue::main
coverage: Completely overhaul counter assignment, using node-flow graphs
2025-01-12 10:36:07 +00:00
Raw bytes (198): 0x[01, 01, 16, 05, 01, 05, 0b, 01, 09, 0d, 01, 0d, 1f, 01, 11, 0d, 1f, 01, 11, 15, 01, 15, 2b, 01, 19, 1d, 01, 1d, 37, 01, 21, 25, 01, 25, 43, 01, 29, 25, 01, 2d, 01, 53, 2d, 01, 31, 2d, 01, 1e, 01, 03, 01, 03, 12, 05, 04, 0e, 00, 13, 02, 01, 0f, 00, 16, 09, 02, 11, 00, 19, 06, 02, 12, 04, 0e, 0d, 06, 0e, 00, 13, 0e, 01, 0f, 00, 16, 1a, 01, 16, 02, 0e, 11, 04, 11, 00, 19, 1a, 03, 09, 00, 0e, 15, 02, 0e, 00, 13, 22, 01, 0f, 00, 16, 19, 01, 15, 02, 0e, 26, 04, 11, 00, 19, 19, 03, 09, 00, 0e, 1d, 02, 0e, 00, 13, 2e, 01, 0c, 00, 13, 21, 01, 0d, 00, 15, 32, 01, 0a, 01, 0e, 25, 03, 0e, 00, 13, 46, 01, 0f, 00, 16, 3e, 01, 16, 02, 0e, 29, 03, 12, 02, 0e, 46, 04, 09, 00, 0e, 2d, 02, 0e, 00, 13, 31, 01, 0f, 00, 16, 56, 01, 16, 02, 0e, 4e, 04, 11, 00, 16, 56, 03, 09, 00, 0e, 01, 02, 0d, 01, 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: 22
- expression 0 operands: lhs = Counter(1), rhs = Counter(0)
- expression 1 operands: lhs = Counter(1), rhs = Expression(2, Add)
- expression 2 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(2)
- expression 3 operands: lhs = Counter(3), rhs = Counter(0)
- expression 4 operands: lhs = Counter(3), rhs = Expression(7, Add)
- expression 5 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(4)
- expression 6 operands: lhs = Counter(3), rhs = Expression(7, Add)
- expression 7 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(4)
- expression 8 operands: lhs = Counter(5), rhs = Counter(0)
- expression 9 operands: lhs = Counter(5), rhs = Expression(10, Add)
- expression 10 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(6)
- expression 11 operands: lhs = Counter(7), rhs = Counter(0)
- expression 12 operands: lhs = Counter(7), rhs = Expression(13, Add)
- expression 13 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(8)
- expression 14 operands: lhs = Counter(9), rhs = Counter(0)
- expression 15 operands: lhs = Counter(9), rhs = Expression(16, Add)
- expression 16 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(10)
- expression 17 operands: lhs = Counter(9), rhs = Counter(0)
- expression 18 operands: lhs = Counter(11), rhs = Counter(0)
- expression 19 operands: lhs = Expression(20, Add), rhs = Counter(11)
- expression 20 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(12)
- expression 21 operands: lhs = Counter(11), rhs = Counter(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: 30
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 3, 1) to (start + 3, 18)
coverage: Completely overhaul counter assignment, using node-flow graphs
2025-01-12 10:36:07 +00:00
- Code(Counter(1)) at (prev + 4, 14) to (start + 0, 19)
- Code(Expression(0, Sub)) at (prev + 1, 15) to (start + 0, 22)
= (c1 - c0)
- Code(Counter(2)) at (prev + 2, 17) to (start + 0, 25)
- Code(Expression(1, Sub)) at (prev + 2, 18) to (start + 4, 14)
= (c1 - (c0 + c2))
- Code(Counter(3)) at (prev + 6, 14) to (start + 0, 19)
- Code(Expression(3, Sub)) at (prev + 1, 15) to (start + 0, 22)
= (c3 - c0)
- Code(Expression(6, Sub)) at (prev + 1, 22) to (start + 2, 14)
= (c3 - (c0 + 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
- Code(Counter(4)) at (prev + 4, 17) to (start + 0, 25)
coverage: Completely overhaul counter assignment, using node-flow graphs
2025-01-12 10:36:07 +00:00
- Code(Expression(6, Sub)) at (prev + 3, 9) to (start + 0, 14)
= (c3 - (c0 + c4))
- Code(Counter(5)) at (prev + 2, 14) to (start + 0, 19)
- Code(Expression(8, Sub)) at (prev + 1, 15) to (start + 0, 22)
= (c5 - c0)
- Code(Counter(6)) at (prev + 1, 21) to (start + 2, 14)
- Code(Expression(9, Sub)) at (prev + 4, 17) to (start + 0, 25)
= (c5 - (c0 + c6))
- Code(Counter(6)) at (prev + 3, 9) to (start + 0, 14)
- Code(Counter(7)) at (prev + 2, 14) to (start + 0, 19)
- Code(Expression(11, Sub)) at (prev + 1, 12) to (start + 0, 19)
= (c7 - c0)
- Code(Counter(8)) at (prev + 1, 13) to (start + 0, 21)
- Code(Expression(12, Sub)) at (prev + 1, 10) to (start + 1, 14)
= (c7 - (c0 + c8))
- Code(Counter(9)) at (prev + 3, 14) to (start + 0, 19)
- Code(Expression(17, Sub)) at (prev + 1, 15) to (start + 0, 22)
= (c9 - c0)
- Code(Expression(15, Sub)) at (prev + 1, 22) to (start + 2, 14)
= (c9 - (c0 + c10))
- Code(Counter(10)) at (prev + 3, 18) to (start + 2, 14)
- Code(Expression(17, Sub)) at (prev + 4, 9) to (start + 0, 14)
= (c9 - c0)
- Code(Counter(11)) at (prev + 2, 14) to (start + 0, 19)
- Code(Counter(12)) at (prev + 1, 15) to (start + 0, 22)
- Code(Expression(21, Sub)) at (prev + 1, 22) to (start + 2, 14)
= (c11 - c0)
- Code(Expression(19, Sub)) at (prev + 4, 17) to (start + 0, 22)
= ((c0 + c12) - c11)
- Code(Expression(21, Sub)) at (prev + 3, 9) to (start + 0, 14)
= (c11 - c0)
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 2, 13) to (start + 1, 2)
Highest counter ID seen: c12
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