mikros/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

coverage: Remove confusing comments from CoverageKind

Browse Source 
These comments appear to be inspired by the similar comments on
`CounterIncrement` and `ExpressionUsed`. But those comments refer to specific
simplification steps performed during coverage codegen, and there is no
corresponding step for the MC/DC coverage statements.

If these statements do not survive optimization, they will simply not
participate in code generation, just like any other statement.
This commit is contained in:
Zalathar 2024-05-01 11:19:52 +10:00
parent bfadc3a9b9
commit c81be68fb4
1 changed files with 0 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

6
compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/coverage.rs
View File

@ -129,17 +129,11 @@ pub enum CoverageKind {
/// Marks the point in MIR control flow represented by a evaluated condition.
///
/// This is eventually lowered to `llvm.instrprof.mcdc.condbitmap.update` in LLVM IR.
///
/// If this statement does not survive MIR optimizations, the condition would never be
/// taken as evaluated.
CondBitmapUpdate { id: ConditionId, value: bool, decision_depth: u16 },
/// Marks the point in MIR control flow represented by a evaluated decision.
///
/// This is eventually lowered to `llvm.instrprof.mcdc.tvbitmap.update` in LLVM IR.
///
/// If this statement does not survive MIR optimizations, the decision would never be
/// taken as evaluated.
TestVectorBitmapUpdate { bitmap_idx: u32, decision_depth: u16 },
}