When refining covspans, we don't specifically care which ones represent
closures; we just want to know which ones represent "holes" that should be
carved out of other spans and then discarded.
(Closures are currently the only source of hole spans, but in the future we
might want to also create hole spans for nested items and inactive `#[cfg(..)]`
regions.)
If we only check for duplicate spans when `prev` is unmodified, we reduce the
number of situations that `update_pending_dups` needs to handle.
This could potentially change the coverage spans we produce in some unknown
corner cases, but none of our current coverage tests indicate any change.
This sidesteps the normal span refinement code in cases where we know that we
are only dealing with the special signature span that represents having called
an async function.
This is less elegant in some ways, since we no longer visit a BCB's spans as a
batch, but will make it much easier to add support for other kinds of coverage
mapping regions (e.g. branch regions or gap regions).
This draws a clear distinction between the fields/methods that are needed by
initial span extraction and preprocessing, and those that are needed by the
main "refinement" loop.
These two tasks historically needed to be interleaved, but after various recent
changes (including #116046 and #116917) they can now be fully separated.
This method is trying to detect macro invocations, so that it can split a span
into two parts just after the `!` of the invocation.
Under some circumstances (probably involving nested macros), it gets confused
and produces a span that is larger than the original span, and possibly extends
outside its enclosing function and even into an adjacent file.
In extreme cases, that can result in malformed coverage mappings that cause
`llvm-cov` to fail. For now, we at least want to detect these egregious cases
and avoid them, so that coverage reports can still be produced.
coverage: Fix inconsistent handling of function signature spans
While doing some more cleanup of `spans`, I noticed a strange inconsistency in how function signatures are handled. Normally the function signature span is treated as though it were executable as part of the start of the function, but in some cases the signature span disappears entirely from coverage, for no obvious reason.
This is caused by the fact that spans created by `CoverageSpan::for_fn_sig` don't add the span to their `merged_spans` field (unlike normal statement/terminator spans). In cases where the span-processing code looks at those merged spans, it thinks the signature span is no longer visible and deletes it.
Adding the signature span to `merged_spans` resolves the inconsistency.
(Prior to #116409 this wouldn't have been possible, because there was no case in the old `CoverageStatement` enum representing a signature. Now that `merged_spans` is just a list of spans, that's no longer an obstacle.)
Interacting with `basic_coverage_blocks` directly makes it easier to satisfy
the borrow checker when mutating `pending_dups` while reading other fields.
