The code in `extract_mcdc_mappings` that allocates these bytes already knows
how many are needed in total, so there's no need to immediately recompute that
value in the calling function.
Now that branch and MC/DC mappings have been split out into separate types and
vectors, this enum is no longer needed, since it only represents ordinary
"code" regions.
(We can revisit this decision if we ever add support for other region kinds,
such as skipped regions or expansion regions. But at that point, we might just
add new structs/vectors for those kinds as well.)
Add decision_depth field to TVBitmapUpdate/CondBitmapUpdate statements
Add decision_depth field to BcbMappingKinds MCDCBranch and MCDCDecision
Add decision_depth field to MCDCBranchSpan and MCDCDecisionSpan
This clears the way for larger changes to how branches are handled by the
coverage instrumentor, in order to support branch coverage for more language
constructs.
The payload of coverage statements was historically a structure with several
fields, so it was boxed to avoid bloating `StatementKind`.
Now that the payload is a single relatively-small enum, we can replace
`Box<Coverage>` with just `CoverageKind`.
This patch also adds a size assertion for `StatementKind`, to avoid
accidentally bloating it in the future.
These assertions detect situations where a BCB node would have both a physical
counter and one or more in-edge counters/expressions.
For most BCBs that situation would indicate an implementation bug. However,
it's perfectly fine in the case of a BCB having an edge that loops back to
itself.
Given the complexity and risk involved in fixing the assertions, and the fact
that nothing relies on them actually being true, this patch just removes them
instead.
This will allow MIR building to check whether a function is eligible for
coverage instrumentation, and avoid collecting branch coverage info if it is
not.
coverage: Rename `is_closure` to `is_hole`
Extracted from #121433, since I was having second thoughts about some of the other changes bundled in that PR, but these changes are still fine.
---
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.)
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
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.)
When we try to extract coverage-relevant spans from MIR, sometimes we see MIR
statements/terminators whose spans cover the entire function body. Those spans
tend to be unhelpful for coverage purposes, because they often represent
compiler-inserted code, e.g. the implicit return value of `()`.
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.
coverage: Split out counter increment sites from BCB node/edge counters
This makes it possible for two nodes/edges in the coverage graph to share the same counter, without causing the instrumentor to inject unwanted duplicate counter-increment statements.
---
````@rustbot```` label +A-code-coverage
