nordic-dev.net/rust
nordic-dev.net/rust
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git synced 2024-11-22 14:55:26 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

coverage: Avoid creating func_coverage for marker statements

Browse Source 
Coverage marker statements should have no effect on codegen, but in some cases
they could have the side-effect of creating a `func_coverage` entry for their
enclosing function. That can lead to an ICE for functions that don't actually
have any coverage spans.
This commit is contained in:
Zalathar 2023-12-12 13:49:19 +11:00
parent dfa6441354
commit c57f28bbf7
1 changed files with 11 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

14
compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/coverageinfo/mod.rs
View File

@ -85,6 +85,14 @@ impl<'tcx> CoverageInfoBuilderMethods<'tcx> for Builder<'_, '_, 'tcx> {
let bx = self;
match coverage.kind {
// Marker statements have no effect during codegen,
// so return early and don't create `func_coverage`.
CoverageKind::SpanMarker => return,
// Match exhaustively to ensure that newly-added kinds are classified correctly.
CoverageKind::CounterIncrement { .. } | CoverageKind::ExpressionUsed { .. } => {}
}
let Some(function_coverage_info) =
bx.tcx.instance_mir(instance.def).function_coverage_info.as_deref()
else {
@ -100,9 +108,9 @@ impl<'tcx> CoverageInfoBuilderMethods<'tcx> for Builder<'_, '_, 'tcx> {
let Coverage { kind } = coverage;
match *kind {
// Span markers are only meaningful during MIR instrumentation,
// and have no effect during codegen.
CoverageKind::SpanMarker => {}
CoverageKind::SpanMarker => unreachable!(
"unexpected marker statement {kind:?} should have caused an early return"
),
CoverageKind::CounterIncrement { id } => {
func_coverage.mark_counter_id_seen(id);
// We need to explicitly drop the `RefMut` before calling into `instrprof_increment`,