diff options
| author | Matthias Krüger <matthias.krueger@famsik.de> | 2022-02-08 06:47:32 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | GitHub <noreply@github.com> | 2022-02-08 06:47:32 +0100 |
| commit | 6024426e86af6dbe3991901752d886e9d43efa2a (patch) | |
| tree | 00a50a80ec652585efcc62c34a152c928c533c4a /library/std/src/sys/unix/stack_overflow.rs | |
| parent | 1f841fc5fe4f7c6f6c73de93930c3ee38c5f814b (diff) | |
| parent | fe9271af22f4a24a3fb06336c2e38fa124158bc6 (diff) | |
| download | rust-6024426e86af6dbe3991901752d886e9d43efa2a.tar.gz rust-6024426e86af6dbe3991901752d886e9d43efa2a.zip | |
Rollup merge of #92695 - Swatinem:cover-nested, r=wesleywiser
Add `#[no_coverage]` tests for nested functions I was playing around a bit trying to figure out how `#[no_coverage]` behaves for nested functions and thought I might as well add this as a testcase. The "nesting covered fn inside not covered fn" case looks pretty much as expected. The "nesting not covered fn inside a covered fn" case however seems a bit counterintuitive. Essentially the region of the outer function "covers" its whole lexical range. And the inner function does not generate any region at all. 🤷🏻♂️ r? `@richkadel`
Diffstat (limited to 'library/std/src/sys/unix/stack_overflow.rs')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions
