When making changes that have a large impact on coverage counter creation, this
makes it easier to see whether the number of physical counters has changed.
(The highest counter ID seen in coverage maps is not necessarily the same as
the number of physical counters actually used by the instrumented code, but
it's the best approximation we can get from looking only at the coverage maps,
and it should be reasonably accurate in most cases.)
This hack was intended to handle the case where `-Clto=thin` causes the
compiler to emit multiple output files (when producing LLVM-IR or assembly).
The hack only affects 4 tests, of which 3 are just meta-tests for the hack
itself. The one remaining test that motivated the hack currently doesn't even
need it!
(`tests/codegen/issues/issue-81408-dllimport-thinlto-windows.rs`)
By moving `block_on` to an auxiliary crate, we avoid having to keep a separate
copy of it in every async test.
(This also incorporates some small tweaks to the headers in `await_ready.rs`.)
Currently `await` is only counted towards coverage if the containing
function is suspended and resumed at least once. This is because it
expands to code which contains a branch on the discriminant of `Poll`.
By treating it like a branching macro (e.g. `assert!`), these
implementation details will be hidden from the coverage results.
Currently `await` is only counted towards coverage if the containing
function is suspended and resumed at least once. A future commit will
fix this and update the test to reflect the new behavior.
Disable the tests and generate an error if MC/DC is used on LLVM 19.
The support will be ported separately, as it is substantially
different on LLVM 19, and there are no plans to support both
versions.
core: avoid `extern type`s in formatting infrastructure
```@RalfJung``` [said](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Use.20of.20.60extern.20type.60.20in.20formatting.20machinery/near/446552837):
>How attached are y'all to using `extern type` in the formatting machinery?
Seems like this was introduced a [long time ago](34ef8f5441). However, it's also [not really compatible with Stacked Borrows](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/256), and only works currently because we effectively treat references-to-extern-type almost like raw pointers in Stacked Borrows -- which of course is unsound, it's not how LLVM works. I was planning to make Miri emit a warning when this happens to avoid cases like [this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126814#issuecomment-2183816373) where people use extern type specifically to silence Miri without realizing what happens. but with the formatting machinery using extern type, this warning would just show up everywhere...
>
> The "proper" way to do this in Stacked Borrows is to use raw pointers (or `NonNull`).
This PR does just that.
r? ```@RalfJung```
coverage: Make `#[coverage(..)]` apply recursively to nested functions
This PR makes the (currently-unstable) `#[coverage(off)]` and `#[coverage(on)]` attributes apply recursively to all nested functions/closures, instead of just the function they are directly attached to.
Those attributes can now also be applied to modules and to impl/impl-trait blocks, where they have no direct effect, but will be inherited by all enclosed functions/closures/methods that don't override the inherited value.
---
Fixes#126625.
Stabilise `c_unwind`
Fix#74990Fix#115285 (that's also where FCP is happening)
Marking as draft PR for now due to `compiler_builtins` issues
r? `@Amanieu`
MCDC Coverage: instrument last boolean RHS operands from condition coverage
Fresh PR from #124652
--
This PR ensures that the top-level boolean expressions that are not part of the control flow are correctly instrumented thanks to condition coverage.
See discussion on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124120.
Depends on `@Zalathar` 's condition coverage implementation #125756.
More thorough status-quo tests for `#[coverage(..)]`
In light of the stabilization push at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84605#issuecomment-2166514660, I have written some tests to more thoroughly capture the current behaviour of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute.
These tests aim to capture the *current* behaviour, which is not necessarily the desired behaviour. For example, some of the error message are not great, some things that perhaps ought to cause an error do not, and recursive coverage attributes have not been implemented yet.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
When set, this flag skips the code that normally extracts coverage spans from
MIR statements and terminators. That sometimes makes it easier to debug branch
coverage and MC/DC coverage, because the coverage output is less noisy.
For internal debugging only. If other code changes would make it hard to keep
supporting this flag, remove it.
As more and more of the span refiner's functionality has been pulled out into
separate early passes, it has finally reached the point where we can remove the
rest of the old `SpansRefiner` code, and replace it with a single
modestly-sized function.
When a lazy logical operator (`&&` or `||`) occurs outside of an `if`
condition, it normally doesn't have any associated control-flow branch, so we
don't have an existing way to track whether it was true or false.
This patch adds special code to handle this case, by inserting extra MIR blocks
in a diamond shape after evaluating the RHS. This gives us a place to insert
the appropriate marker statements, which can then be given their own counters.
coverage: Avoid overflow when the MC/DC condition limit is exceeded
Fix for the test failure seen in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124571#issuecomment-2099620869.
If we perform this subtraction first, it can sometimes overflow to -1 before the addition can bring its value back to 0.
That behaviour seems to be benign, but it nevertheless causes test failures in compiler configurations that check for overflow.
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
Currently we can't automatically enforce formatting on tests (see #125637), but
we can at least keep things relatively tidy by occasionally running the
formatter manually.
This was done by temporarily commenting out the `"/tests/"` exclusion in
`rustfmt.toml`, and then running `x fmt tests/coverage` and
`x test coverage --bless`.
For coverage tests, splitting code across multiple lines often makes the
resulting coverage report easier to interpret, so we force rustfmt to retain
line breaks by adding dummy line comments with `//`.
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.
coverage: Branch coverage support for let-else and if-let
This PR adds branch coverage instrumentation for let-else and if-let, including let-chains.
This lifts two of the limitations listed at #124118.
