| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
This flag turned out to be less useful than anticipated, and interferes with
work towards expansion support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
For PGO/coverage tests that don't need to build or run an actual artifact, we
can use `-Zno-profiler-runtime` to run the test even when the profiler runtime
is not available.
|
|
coverage: Optionally instrument the RHS of lazy logical operators
(This is an updated version of #124644 and #124402. Fixes #124120.)
When `||` or `&&` is used outside of a branching context (such as the condition of an `if`), the rightmost value does not directly influence any branching decision, so branch coverage instrumentation does not treat it as its own true-or-false branch.
That is a correct and useful interpretation of “branch coverage”, but might be undesirable in some contexts, as described at #124120. This PR therefore adds a new coverage level `-Zcoverage-options=condition` that behaves like branch coverage, but also adds additional branch instrumentation to the right-hand-side of lazy boolean operators.
---
As discussed at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124120#issuecomment-2092394586, this is mainly intended as an intermediate step towards fully-featured MC/DC instrumentation. It's likely that we'll eventually want to remove this coverage level (rather than stabilize it), either because it has been incorporated into MC/DC instrumentation, or because it's getting in the way of future MC/DC work. The main appeal of landing it now is so that work on tracking conditions can proceed concurrently with other MC/DC-related work.
````@rustbot```` label +A-code-coverage
|
|
|
|
This value represents a quantity of conditions, not an ID, so the new spelling
is more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Most of these changes either add revision names that were apparently missing,
or explicitly mark a revision name as currently unused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While `false` is accepted by `--cfg` it isn't by `#[cfg(false)]`
since in that context `false` is the boolean not a ident.
|
|
This new nightly-only flag can be used to toggle fine-grained flags that
control the details of coverage instrumentation.
Currently the only supported flag value is `branch` (or `no-branch`), which is
a placeholder for upcoming support for branch coverage. Other flag values can
be added in the future, to prototype proposed new behaviour, or to enable
special non-default behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This flag has to be used in combination with `-Zunstable-options`,
and is added in advance of adding branch coverage instrumentation.
|
|
|
