coverage: Prepare for improved branch coverage #124217
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt |
rustbot
added
the
A-code-coverage
Zalathar
commented
Apr 21, 2024
Comment on lines
+119
to
+121
| for branch in &mut self.mcdc_branch_spans[rebase_idx..] { | ||
| branch.condition_info = None; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the MC/DC code gives up on full MC/DC instrumentation, instead of creating a BranchSpan, it now creates an MCDCBranchSpan with condition_info: None.
That span will eventually get turned back into an ordinary branch region, in the coverage MIR pass. This change will let me improve how ordinary branch coverage is handled during MIR building, without having to also worry about how it interacts with MC/DC.
|
cc @Lambdaris @ZhuUx @RenjiSann This will affect any work that you're building on top of the current MC/DC code. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
pre-branch
branch
2 times, most recently
from
3a6c74b
to
c6eb1ac
Compare
|
The separation might mean it's better for mcdc to develop its own methods to deal with pattern match like |
|
r? @oli-obk |
MC/DC's reliance on the existing branch coverage types is making it much harder to improve branch coverage.
This clears the way for larger changes to how branches are handled by the coverage instrumentor, in order to support branch coverage for more language constructs.
|
@bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2024
coverage: Prepare for improved branch coverage When trying to rebase my new branch coverage work (including rust-lang#124154) on top of the introduction of MC/DC coverage (rust-lang#123409), I found it a lot harder than anticipated. With the benefit of hindsight, the branch coverage code and MC/DC code have become more interdependent than I'm happy with. This PR therefore disentangles them a bit, so that it will be easier for both areas of code to evolve independently without interference. --- This PR also includes a few extra branch coverage tests that I had sitting around from my current branch coverage work. They mostly just demonstrate that certain language constructs listed in rust-lang#124118 currently don't have branch coverage support. `@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2024
…llaumeGomez Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#124178 ([cleanup] [llvm backend] Prevent creating the same `Instance::mono` multiple times) - rust-lang#124183 (Stop taking `ParamTy`/`ParamConst`/`EarlyParamRegion`/`AliasTy` by ref) - rust-lang#124217 (coverage: Prepare for improved branch coverage) - rust-lang#124220 (Miri: detect wrong vtables in wide pointers) - rust-lang#124252 (Improve ICE message for forbidden dep-graph reads.) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2024
…llaumeGomez Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#115913 (checked_ilog: improve performance) - rust-lang#124178 ([cleanup] [llvm backend] Prevent creating the same `Instance::mono` multiple times) - rust-lang#124183 (Stop taking `ParamTy`/`ParamConst`/`EarlyParamRegion`/`AliasTy` by ref) - rust-lang#124217 (coverage: Prepare for improved branch coverage) - rust-lang#124230 (Stabilize generic `NonZero`.) - rust-lang#124252 (Improve ICE message for forbidden dep-graph reads.) - rust-lang#124268 (Update books) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 23, 2024
…llaumeGomez Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#115913 (checked_ilog: improve performance) - rust-lang#124178 ([cleanup] [llvm backend] Prevent creating the same `Instance::mono` multiple times) - rust-lang#124183 (Stop taking `ParamTy`/`ParamConst`/`EarlyParamRegion`/`AliasTy` by ref) - rust-lang#124217 (coverage: Prepare for improved branch coverage) - rust-lang#124230 (Stabilize generic `NonZero`.) - rust-lang#124252 (Improve ICE message for forbidden dep-graph reads.) - rust-lang#124268 (Update books) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 23, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#124217 - Zalathar:pre-branch, r=oli-obk coverage: Prepare for improved branch coverage When trying to rebase my new branch coverage work (including rust-lang#124154) on top of the introduction of MC/DC coverage (rust-lang#123409), I found it a lot harder than anticipated. With the benefit of hindsight, the branch coverage code and MC/DC code have become more interdependent than I'm happy with. This PR therefore disentangles them a bit, so that it will be easier for both areas of code to evolve independently without interference. --- This PR also includes a few extra branch coverage tests that I had sitting around from my current branch coverage work. They mostly just demonstrate that certain language constructs listed in rust-lang#124118 currently don't have branch coverage support. ``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 30, 2024
Split mcdc code to a sub module of coverageinfo A further work from rust-lang#124217 . I have made relatively large changes when working on rust-lang#124278 so that it would better split them from `coverageinfo.rs` to avoid potential troubling merge work with improved branch coverage by `@Zalathar` . Besides `BlockMarkerGenerator` is added to avoid ownership problems (mostly needed for following change of rust-lang#124278 ) All code changes are done in [a37d737a](rust-lang@a3d737a) while the second commit just renames the file. cc `@RenjiSann` `@Zalathar` This will impact your current work.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When trying to rebase my new branch coverage work (including #124154) on top of the introduction of MC/DC coverage (#123409), I found it a lot harder than anticipated. With the benefit of hindsight, the branch coverage code and MC/DC code have become more interdependent than I'm happy with.
This PR therefore disentangles them a bit, so that it will be easier for both areas of code to evolve independently without interference.
This PR also includes a few extra branch coverage tests that I had sitting around from my current branch coverage work. They mostly just demonstrate that certain language constructs listed in #124118 currently don't have branch coverage support.
@rustbot label +A-code-coverage