| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
This also removes some manipulation of the function signature span that only
made sense in the context of merging non-adjacent spans.
|
|
|
|
When preparing a function's coverage counters and metadata during codegen, any
part of the original coverage graph that was removed by MIR optimizations can
be treated as having an execution count of zero.
Somewhat counter-intuitively, if we give those unreachable nodes a _higher_
priority for receiving physical counters (instead of counter expressions), that
ends up reducing the total number of physical counters needed.
This works because if a node is unreachable, we don't actually create a
physical counter for it. Instead that node gets a fixed zero counter, and any
other node that would have relied on that physical counter in its counter
expression can just ignore that term completely.
|
|
r=wesleywiser"
This reverts commit 1d35638dc38dbfbf1cc2a9823135dfcf3c650169, reversing
changes made to f23a80a4c2fbca593b64e70f5970368824b4c5e9.
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: zachs18 <8355914+zachs18@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
|
|
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.)
|
|
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`.)
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we extract coverage spans from MIR, we try to "un-expand" them back to
spans that are inside the function's body span.
In cases where that doesn't succeed, the current code just swaps in the entire
body span instead. But that tends to result in coverage spans that are
completely unrelated to the control flow of the affected code, so it's better
to just discard those spans.
|
|
|
