mikros/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
11c7f632a2
rust/tests/coverage/inner_items.cov-map

47 lines
1.8 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 06:29:41 -05:00
Function name: <inner_items::main::InStruct as inner_items::main::InTrait>::default_trait_func
Raw bytes (9): 0x[01, 01, 00, 01, 01, 21, 09, 03, 0a]
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
Number of expressions: 0
Number of file 0 mappings: 1
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 33, 9) to (start + 3, 10)
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.)
2024-10-07 21:13:05 -05:00
Highest counter ID seen: c0
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 06:29:41 -05:00
Function name: <inner_items::main::InStruct as inner_items::main::InTrait>::trait_func
Raw bytes (9): 0x[01, 01, 00, 01, 01, 28, 09, 03, 0a]
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
Number of expressions: 0
Number of file 0 mappings: 1
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 40, 9) to (start + 3, 10)
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.)
2024-10-07 21:13:05 -05:00
Highest counter ID seen: c0
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 06:29:41 -05:00
Function name: inner_items::main
coverage: Restrict empty-span expansion to only cover `{` and `}`
2024-11-05 04:59:10 -06:00
Raw bytes (43): 0x[01, 01, 02, 01, 05, 01, 09, 07, 01, 03, 01, 07, 0f, 05, 07, 10, 02, 06, 02, 02, 05, 00, 06, 01, 24, 08, 00, 0f, 09, 00, 10, 02, 06, 06, 02, 05, 00, 06, 01, 02, 09, 05, 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 06:29:41 -05:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
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.
2024-05-13 22:51:24 -05:00
Number of expressions: 2
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 06:29:41 -05:00
- expression 0 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(1)
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.
2024-05-13 22:51:24 -05:00
- expression 1 operands: lhs = Counter(0), rhs = Counter(2)
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 06:29:41 -05:00
Number of file 0 mappings: 7
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 3, 1) to (start + 7, 15)
- Code(Counter(1)) at (prev + 7, 16) to (start + 2, 6)
coverage: Restrict empty-span expansion to only cover `{` and `}`
2024-11-05 04:59:10 -06:00
- Code(Expression(0, Sub)) at (prev + 2, 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 06:29:41 -05:00
= (c0 - c1)
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.
2024-05-13 22:51:24 -05:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 36, 8) to (start + 0, 15)
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 06:29:41 -05:00
- Code(Counter(2)) at (prev + 0, 16) to (start + 2, 6)
coverage: Restrict empty-span expansion to only cover `{` and `}`
2024-11-05 04:59:10 -06:00
- Code(Expression(1, Sub)) at (prev + 2, 5) to (start + 0, 6)
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.
2024-05-13 22:51:24 -05:00
= (c0 - c2)
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 2, 9) to (start + 5, 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.)
2024-10-07 21:13:05 -05:00
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 06:29:41 -05:00
Function name: inner_items::main::in_func
Raw bytes (9): 0x[01, 01, 00, 01, 01, 12, 05, 04, 06]
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
Number of expressions: 0
Number of file 0 mappings: 1
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 18, 5) to (start + 4, 6)
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.)
2024-10-07 21:13:05 -05:00
Highest counter ID seen: c0
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 06:29:41 -05:00
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink