rust/tests/coverage/let_else_loop.rs
Zalathar 85bec7a50c coverage: Remove incorrect assertions from counter allocation
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.
2024-03-20 18:22:15 +11:00

34 lines
882 B
Rust

#![feature(coverage_attribute)]
//@ edition: 2021
// Regression test for <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122738>.
// These code patterns should not trigger an ICE when allocating a physical
// counter to a node and also one of its in-edges, because that is allowed
// when the node contains a tight loop to itself.
fn loopy(cond: bool) {
let true = cond else { loop {} };
}
// Variant that also has `loop {}` on the success path.
// This isn't needed to catch the original ICE, but might help detect regressions.
fn _loop_either_way(cond: bool) {
let true = cond else { loop {} };
loop {}
}
// Variant using regular `if` instead of let-else.
// This doesn't trigger the original ICE, but might help detect regressions.
fn _if(cond: bool) {
if cond {
loop {}
} else {
loop {}
}
}
#[coverage(off)]
fn main() {
loopy(true);
}