rust/tests/coverage/issue-83601.cov-map

Function name: issue_83601::main
Raw bytes (21): 0x[01, 01, 01, 05, 09, 03, 01, 06, 01, 02, 1c, 05, 03, 09, 01, 1c, 02, 02, 05, 03, 02]
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
Number of expressions: 1
- expression 0 operands: lhs = Counter(1), rhs = Counter(2)
Number of file 0 mappings: 3
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 6, 1) to (start + 2, 28)
- Code(Counter(1)) at (prev + 3, 9) to (start + 1, 28)
- Code(Expression(0, Sub)) at (prev + 2, 5) to (start + 3, 2)
    = (c1 - c2)
Highest counter ID seen: c1
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: issue_83601::main`
update coverage test 2024-06-25 17:06:27 -05:00			`Raw bytes (21): 0x[01, 01, 01, 05, 09, 03, 01, 06, 01, 02, 1c, 05, 03, 09, 01, 1c, 02, 02, 05, 03, 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`
			`Number of expressions: 1`
update coverage test 2024-06-25 17:06:27 -05:00			`- expression 0 operands: lhs = Counter(1), 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: 3`
			`- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 6, 1) to (start + 2, 28)`
			`- Code(Counter(1)) at (prev + 3, 9) to (start + 1, 28)`
			`- Code(Expression(0, Sub)) at (prev + 2, 5) to (start + 3, 2)`
update coverage test 2024-06-25 17:06:27 -05:00			`= (c1 - c2)`
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: c1`
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