mikros/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
f5b62577f7
rust/tests/coverage/macro_name_span.cov-map

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

19 lines
563 B
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

coverage: Regression test for #117788 Without the workaround applied, this test will produce malformed mappings that cause `llvm-cov` to fail. (And if it does emit well-formed mappings, they should be obviously incorrect.)
2023-11-12 18:33:44 -06:00
Function name: macro_name_span::affected_function
coverage: Discard spans that fill the entire function body When we try to extract coverage-relevant spans from MIR, sometimes we see MIR statements/terminators whose spans cover the entire function body. Those spans tend to be unhelpful for coverage purposes, because they often represent compiler-inserted code, e.g. the implicit return value of `()`.
2024-02-15 01:12:27 -06:00
Raw bytes (9): 0x[01, 01, 00, 01, 01, 16, 1c, 01, 40]
coverage: Regression test for #117788 Without the workaround applied, this test will produce malformed mappings that cause `llvm-cov` to fail. (And if it does emit well-formed mappings, they should be obviously incorrect.)
2023-11-12 18:33:44 -06:00
Number of files: 1
- file 0 => global file 1
Number of expressions: 0
Number of file 0 mappings: 1
coverage: Discard spans that fill the entire function body When we try to extract coverage-relevant spans from MIR, sometimes we see MIR statements/terminators whose spans cover the entire function body. Those spans tend to be unhelpful for coverage purposes, because they often represent compiler-inserted code, e.g. the implicit return value of `()`.
2024-02-15 01:12:27 -06:00
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 22, 28) to (start + 1, 64)
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
coverage: Regression test for #117788 Without the workaround applied, this test will produce malformed mappings that cause `llvm-cov` to fail. (And if it does emit well-formed mappings, they should be obviously incorrect.)
2023-11-12 18:33:44 -06:00
Function name: macro_name_span::main
macro_rules: Less hacky heuristic for using `tt` metavariable spans
2023-12-01 09:23:16 -06:00
Raw bytes (9): 0x[01, 01, 00, 01, 01, 0b, 01, 02, 02]
coverage: Regression test for #117788 Without the workaround applied, this test will produce malformed mappings that cause `llvm-cov` to fail. (And if it does emit well-formed mappings, they should be obviously incorrect.)
2023-11-12 18:33:44 -06:00
Number of files: 1
macro_rules: Less hacky heuristic for using `tt` metavariable spans
2023-12-01 09:23:16 -06:00
- file 0 => global file 1
coverage: Regression test for #117788 Without the workaround applied, this test will produce malformed mappings that cause `llvm-cov` to fail. (And if it does emit well-formed mappings, they should be obviously incorrect.)
2023-11-12 18:33:44 -06:00
Number of expressions: 0
Number of file 0 mappings: 1
- Code(Counter(0)) at (prev + 11, 1) to (start + 2, 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: c0
coverage: Regression test for #117788 Without the workaround applied, this test will produce malformed mappings that cause `llvm-cov` to fail. (And if it does emit well-formed mappings, they should be obviously incorrect.)
2023-11-12 18:33:44 -06:00
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink