MCDC coverage: support nested decision coverage
#123409 provided the initial MCDC coverage implementation.
As referenced in #124144, it does not currently support "nested" decisions, like the following example :
```rust
fn nested_if_in_condition(a: bool, b: bool, c: bool) {
if a && if b || c { true } else { false } {
say("yes");
} else {
say("no");
}
}
```
Note that there is an if-expression (`if b || c ...`) embedded inside a boolean expression in the decision of an outer if-expression.
This PR proposes a workaround for this cases, by introducing a Decision context stack, and by handing several `temporary condition bitmaps` instead of just one.
When instrumenting boolean expressions, if the current node is a leaf condition (i.e. not a `||`/`&&` logical operator nor a `!` not operator), we insert a new decision context, such that if there are more boolean expressions inside the condition, they are handled as separate expressions.
On the codegen LLVM side, we allocate as many `temp_cond_bitmap`s as necessary to handle the maximum encountered decision depth.
coverage: Branch coverage tests for lazy boolean operators
The current branch coverage implementation already supports the `&&` and `||` operators (even outside of an `if` condition), as a natural consequence of how they are desugared/lowered, but we didn't have any specific tests for them. This PR adds some appropriate tests.
I've also moved the existing branch coverage tests into a `coverage/branch` subdirectory, so that they don't become unwieldy as I add more branch coverage tests.
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
These assertions detect situations where a BCB node would have both a physical
counter and one or more in-edge counters/expressions.
For most BCBs that situation would indicate an implementation bug. However,
it's perfectly fine in the case of a BCB having an edge that loops back to
itself.
Given the complexity and risk involved in fixing the assertions, and the fact
that nothing relies on them actually being true, this patch just removes them
instead.
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 `()`.
Some of these tests were originally written as part of a custom `run-make`
test, so at that time they weren't able to use the normal compiletest header
directive parser.
Now that they're properly integrated, there's no need for them to use
`compile-flags` to specify the edition, since they can use `edition` instead.
coverage: Don't instrument `#[automatically_derived]` functions
This PR makes the coverage instrumentor detect and skip functions that have [`#[automatically_derived]`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/attributes/derive.html#the-automatically_derived-attribute) on their enclosing impl block.
Most notably, this means that methods generated by built-in derives (e.g. `Clone`, `Debug`, `PartialEq`) are now ignored by coverage instrumentation, and won't appear as executed or not-executed in coverage reports.
This is a noticeable change in user-visible behaviour, but overall I think it's a net improvement. For example, we've had a few user requests for this sort of change (e.g. #105055, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84605#issuecomment-1902069040), and I believe it's the behaviour that most users will expect/prefer by default.
It's possible to imagine situations where users would want to instrument these derived implementations, but I think it's OK to treat that as an opportunity to consider adding more fine-grained option flags to control the details of coverage instrumentation, while leaving this new behaviour as the default.
(Also note that while `-Cinstrument-coverage` is a stable feature, the exact details of coverage instrumentation are allowed to change. So we *can* make this change; the main question is whether we *should*.)
Fixes#105055.
coverage: Format all coverage tests with `rustfmt`
As suggested by <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119984#discussion_r1452856806>.
Test files in `tests/` are normally ignored by `x fmt`, but sometimes those files end up being run through `rustfmt` anyway, either by `rust-analyzer` or by hand.
When that happens, it's annoying to have to manually revert formatting changes that are unrelated to the actual changes being made. So it's helpful for the tests in the repository to already have standard formatting beforehand.
However, there are several coverage tests that deliberately use non-standard formatting, so that line counts reveal more information about where code regions begin and end. In those cases, we can use `#[rustfmt::skip]` to prevent that code from being disturbed.
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
Some of these tests use non-standard formatting that we can simulate by
strategically adding `//` line comments.
One contains `where` clauses that would be split across multiple lines, which
we can keep on one line by moving the bounds to the generic type instead.
These tests deliberately use non-standard formatting, so that the line
execution counts reported by `llvm-cov` reveal additional information about
where code regions begin and end.
coverage: Hoist some complex code out of the main span refinement loop
The span refinement loop in `spans.rs` takes the spans that have been extracted from MIR, and modifies them to produce more helpful output in coverage reports.
It is also one of the most complicated pieces of code in the coverage instrumentor. It has an abundance of moving pieces that make it difficult to understand, and most attempts to modify it end up accidentally changing its behaviour in unacceptable ways.
This PR nevertheless tries to make a dent in it by hoisting two pieces of special-case logic out of the main loop, and into separate preprocessing passes. Coverage tests show that the resulting mappings are *almost* identical, with all known differences being unimportant.
This should hopefully unlock further simplifications to the refinement loop, since it now has fewer edge cases to worry about.
Normally, each test in `tests/coverage` is automatically run in both
`coverage-map` mode and `coverage-run` mode.
This new family of directives allows an individual test to specify that it
should not be run in a particular mode.
coverage: Skip instrumenting a function if no spans were extracted from MIR
The immediate symptoms of #118643 were fixed by #118666, but some users reported that their builds now encounter another coverage-related ICE:
```
error: internal compiler error: compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/coverageinfo/mapgen.rs:98:17: A used function should have had coverage mapping data but did not: (...)
```
I was able to reproduce at least one cause of this error: if no relevant spans could be extracted from a function, but the function contains `CoverageKind::SpanMarker` statements, then codegen still thinks the function is instrumented and complains about the fact that it has no coverage spans.
This PR prevents that from happening in two ways:
- If we didn't extract any relevant spans from MIR, skip instrumenting the entire function and don't create a `FunctionCoverateInfo` for it.
- If coverage codegen sees a `CoverageKind::SpanMarker` statement, skip it early and avoid creating `func_coverage`.
---
Fixes#118850.
