rust-lang/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 1 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
647f1536d2f50b203ca9a67396225c4f7771e1c8
rust/tests/coverage/simple_loop.cov-map

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

28 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 21:29:41 +10:00
Function name: simple_loop::main
coverage: Only merge adjacent coverage spans This also removes some manipulation of the function signature span that only made sense in the context of merging non-adjacent spans.
2025-04-12 17:52:55 +10:00
Raw bytes (75): 0x[01, 01, 03, 01, 05, 09, 01, 09, 01, 0d, 01, 04, 01, 00, 0a, 01, 04, 09, 00, 10, 01, 00, 13, 00, 2e, 01, 02, 09, 00, 16, 01, 00, 19, 00, 1a, 01, 03, 09, 00, 10, 05, 01, 05, 05, 06, 02, 05, 05, 00, 06, 09, 05, 0d, 02, 0e, 01, 04, 0d, 00, 12, 0a, 02, 09, 00, 0a, 0a, 01, 09, 02, 0a, 01, 05, 01, 00, 02]
Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 21:29:41 +10:00
Number of files: 1
coverage-dump: Dump filenames instead of global file IDs (and bless)
2025-04-24 17:36:50 +10:00
- file 0 => $DIR/simple_loop.rs
coverage: Only merge adjacent coverage spans This also removes some manipulation of the function signature span that only made sense in the context of merging non-adjacent spans.
2025-04-12 17:52:55 +10:00
Number of expressions: 3
Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 21:29:41 +10:00
- expression 0 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(1)
coverage: Completely overhaul counter assignment, using node-flow graphs
2025-01-12 21:36:07 +11:00
- expression 1 operands: lhs = Counter(2), rhs = Counter(0)
coverage: Only merge adjacent coverage spans This also removes some manipulation of the function signature span that only made sense in the context of merging non-adjacent spans.
2025-04-12 17:52:55 +10:00
- expression 2 operands: lhs = Counter(2), rhs = Counter(0)
Number of file 0 mappings: 13
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 4, 1) to (start + 0, 10)
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 4, 9) to (start + 0, 16)
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 0, 19) to (start + 0, 46)
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 2, 9) to (start + 0, 22)
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 0, 25) to (start + 0, 26)
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 3, 9) to (start + 0, 16)
- Code(Counter(1)) at (prev + 1, 5) to (start + 5, 6)
coverage: Restrict empty-span expansion to only cover `{` and `}`
2024-11-05 21:59:10 +11:00
- Code(Expression(0, Sub)) at (prev + 5, 5) to (start + 0, 6)
Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 21:29:41 +10:00
= (c0 - c1)
coverage: Completely overhaul counter assignment, using node-flow graphs
2025-01-12 21:36:07 +11:00
- Code(Counter(2)) at (prev + 5, 13) to (start + 2, 14)
coverage: Simplify counter expressions using simple algebra 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.
2024-05-14 13:51:24 +10:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 4, 13) to (start + 0, 18)
coverage: Only merge adjacent coverage spans This also removes some manipulation of the function signature span that only made sense in the context of merging non-adjacent spans.
2025-04-12 17:52:55 +10:00
- Code(Expression(2, Sub)) at (prev + 2, 9) to (start + 0, 10)
coverage: Completely overhaul counter assignment, using node-flow graphs
2025-01-12 21:36:07 +11:00
= (c2 - c0)
coverage: Only merge adjacent coverage spans This also removes some manipulation of the function signature span that only made sense in the context of merging non-adjacent spans.
2025-04-12 17:52:55 +10:00
- Code(Expression(2, Sub)) at (prev + 1, 9) to (start + 2, 10)
= (c2 - c0)
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 5, 1) to (start + 0, 2)
coverage: Include the highest counter ID seen in `.cov-map` dumps 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.)
2024-10-08 13:13:05 +11:00
Highest counter ID seen: c2
Copy most of `tests/run-coverage` into `tests/coverage-map/status-quo` The output of these tests is too complicated to comfortably verify by hand, but we can still use them to observe changes to the underlying mappings produced by codegen/LLVM. If these tests fail due to non-coverage changes (e.g. in HIR-to-MIR lowering or MIR optimizations), it should usually be OK to just `--bless` them, as long as the `run-coverage` test suite still works.
2023-08-14 21:29:41 +10:00
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink