coverage: Memoize and simplify counter expressions
When creating coverage counter expressions as part of coverage instrumentation, we often end up creating obviously-redundant expressions like `c1 + (c0 - c1)`, which is equivalent to just `c0`.
To avoid doing so, this PR checks when we would create an expression matching one of 5 patterns, and uses the simplified form instead:
- `(a - b) + b` → `a`.
- `(a + b) - b` → `a`.
- `(a + b) - a` → `b`.
- `a + (b - a)` → `b`.
- `a - (a - b)` → `b`.
Of all the different ways to combine 3 operands and 2 operators, these are the patterns that allow simplification.
(Some of those patterns currently don't occur in practice, but are included anyway for completeness, to avoid having to add them later as branch coverage and MC/DC coverage support expands.)
---
This PR also adds memoization for newly-created (or newly-simplified) counter expressions, to avoid creating duplicates.
This currently makes no difference to the final mappings, but is expected to be useful for MC/DC coverage of match expressions, as proposed by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124278#issuecomment-2106754753.
This code for recalculating `mcdc_bitmap_bytes` doesn't provide any benefit,
because its result won't have changed from the value in `FunctionCoverageInfo`
that was computed during the MIR instrumentation pass.
Some of these cases currently don't occur in practice, but are included for
completeness, and to avoid having to add them later as branch coverage and
MC/DC coverage start building more complex expressions.
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.)
