Because the three kinds of operand are now distinguished explicitly, we no
longer need fiddly code to disambiguate counter IDs and expression IDs based on
the total number of counters/expressions in a function.
This does increase the size of operands from 4 bytes to 8 bytes, but that
shouldn't be a big deal since they are mostly stored inside boxed structures,
and the current coverage code is not particularly size-optimized anyway.
This section name is always constant for a given target, but obtaining it from
LLVM requires a few intermediate allocations. There's no need to do so
repeatedly from inside a per-function loop.
Remove `LLVMRustCoverageHashCString`
Coverage has two FFI functions for computing the hash of a byte string. One takes a ptr/len pair (`LLVMRustCoverageHashByteArray`), and the other takes a NUL-terminated C string (`LLVMRustCoverageHashCString`).
But on closer inspection, the C string version is unnecessary. The calling-side code converts a Rust `&str` into a `CString`, and the C++ code then immediately turns it back into a ptr/len string before actually hashing it. So we can just call the ptr/len version directly instead.
---
This PR also fixes a bug in the C++ declaration of `LLVMRustCoverageHashByteArray`. It should be `size_t`, since that's what is declared and passed on the Rust side, and it's what `StrRef`'s constructor expects to receive on the callee side.
Coverage has two FFI functions for computing the hash of a byte string. One
takes a ptr/len pair, and the other takes a NUL-terminated C string.
But on closer inspection, the C string version is unnecessary. The calling-side
code converts a Rust `&str` into a C string, and the C++ code then immediately
turns it back into a ptr/len string before actually hashing it.
The function body immediately treats it as a slice anyway, so this just makes
it possible to call the hash function with arbitrary read-only byte slices.
Stabilize `-Z instrument-coverage` as `-C instrument-coverage`
(Tracking issue for `instrument-coverage`: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79121)
This PR stabilizes support for instrumentation-based code coverage, previously provided via the `-Z instrument-coverage` option. (Continue supporting `-Z instrument-coverage` for compatibility for now, but show a deprecation warning for it.)
Many, many people have tested this support, and there are numerous reports of it working as expected.
Move the documentation from the unstable book to stable rustc documentation. Update uses and documentation to use the `-C` option.
Addressing questions raised in the tracking issue:
> If/when stabilized, will the compiler flag be updated to -C instrument-coverage? (If so, the -Z variant could also be supported for some time, to ease migrations for existing users and scripts.)
This stabilization PR updates the option to `-C` and keeps the `-Z` variant to ease migration.
> The Rust coverage implementation depends on (and automatically turns on) -Z symbol-mangling-version=v0. Will stabilizing this feature depend on stabilizing v0 symbol-mangling first? If so, what is the current status and timeline?
This stabilization PR depends on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90128 , which stabilizes `-C symbol-mangling-version=v0` (but does not change the default symbol-mangling-version).
> The Rust coverage implementation implements the latest version of LLVM's Coverage Mapping Format (version 4), which forces a dependency on LLVM 11 or later. A compiler error is generated if attempting to compile with coverage, and using an older version of LLVM.
Given that LLVM 13 has now been released, requiring LLVM 11 for coverage support seems like a reasonable requirement. If people don't have at least LLVM 11, nothing else breaks; they just can't use coverage support. Given that coverage support currently requires a nightly compiler and LLVM 11 or newer, allowing it on a stable compiler built with LLVM 11 or newer seems like an improvement.
The [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79121) and the [issue label A-code-coverage](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/labels/A-code-coverage) link to a few open issues related to `instrument-coverage`, but none of them seem like showstoppers. All of them seem like improvements and refinements we can make after stabilization.
The original `-Z instrument-coverage` support went through a compiler-team MCP at https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/278 . Based on that, `@pnkfelix` suggested that this needed a stabilization PR and a compiler-team FCP.
If we do not add code coverage instrumentation to the `Body` of a
function, then when we go to generate the function record for it, we
won't write any data and this later causes llvm-cov to fail when
processing data for the entire coverage report.
I've identified two main cases where we do not currently add code
coverage instrumentation to the `Body` of a function:
1. If the function has a single `BasicBlock` and it ends with a
`TerminatorKind::Unreachable`.
2. If the function is created using a proc macro of some kind.
For case 1, this typically not important as this most often occurs as
the result of function definitions that take or return uninhabited
types. These kinds of functions, by definition, cannot even be called so
they logically should not be counted in code coverage statistics.
For case 2, I haven't looked into this very much but I've noticed while
testing this patch that (other than functions which are covered by case
1) the skipped function coverage debug message is occasionally triggered
in large crate graphs by functions generated from a proc macro. This may
have something to do with weird spans being generated by the proc macro
but this is just a guess.
I think it's reasonable to land this change since currently, we fail to
generate *any* results from llvm-cov when a function has no coverage
instrumentation applied to it. With this change, we get coverage data
for all functions other than the two cases discussed above.
Continue supporting -Z instrument-coverage for compatibility for now,
but show a deprecation warning for it.
Update uses and documentation to use the -C option.
Move the documentation from the unstable book to stable rustc
documentation.
The issue here is that the logic used to determine which CGU to put the
dead function stubs in doesn't handle cases where a module is never
assigned to a CGU.
The partitioning logic also caused issues in #85461 where inline
functions were duplicated into multiple CGUs resulting in duplicate
symbols.
This commit fixes the issue by removing the complex logic used to assign
dead code stubs to CGUs and replaces it with a much simplier model: we
pick one CGU to hold all the dead code stubs. We pick a CGU which has
exported items which increases the likelihood the linker won't throw
away our dead functions and we pick the smallest to minimize the impact
on compilation times for crates with very large CGUs.
Fixes#86177Fixes#85718Fixes#79622
As discovered in #85461, the MSVC linker treats weak symbols slightly
differently than unix-y linkers do. This causes link.exe to fail with
LNK1227 "conflicting weak extern definition" where as other targets are
able to link successfully.
This changes the dead functions from being generated as weak/hidden to
private/default which, as the LLVM reference says:
> Global values with “private” linkage are only directly accessible by
objects in the current module. In particular, linking code into a module
with a private global value may cause the private to be renamed as
necessary to avoid collisions. Because the symbol is private to the
module, all references can be updated. This doesn’t show up in any
symbol table in the object file.
This fixes the conflicting weak symbols but doesn't address the reason
*why* we have conflicting symbols for these dead functions. The test
cases added in this commit contain a minimal repro of the fundamental
issue which is that the logic used to decide what dead code functions
should be codegen'd in the current CGU doesn't take into account that
functions can be duplicated across multiple CGUs (for instance, in the
case of `#[inline(always)]` functions).
Fixing that is likely to be a more complex change (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85461#issuecomment-985005805).
Fixes#85461
This commit augments Swatinem's initial commit in uncommitted PR #90047,
which was a great starting point, but did not fully support LLVM
Coverage Mapping Format version 6.
Version 6 requires adding the compilation directory when file paths are
relative, and since Rustc coverage maps use relative paths, we should
add the expected compilation directory entry.
Note, however, that with the compilation directory, coverage reports
from `llvm-cov show` can now report file names (when the report includes
more than one file) with the full absolute path to the file.
This would be a problem for test results, but the workaround (for the
rust coverage tests) is to include an additional `llvm-cov show`
parameter: `--compilation-dir=.`
Remove CrateNum parameter for queries that only work on local crate
The pervasive `CrateNum` parameter is a remnant of the multi-crate rustc idea.
Using `()` as query key in those cases avoids having to worry about the validity of the query key.
Removes unneeded check of `#[no_coverage]` in mapgen
There is an anticipated feature request to support a compiler flag that
only adds coverage for specific files (or perhaps mods). As I thought
about where that change would need to be supported, I realized that
checking the attribute in mapgen (for unused functions) was unnecessary.
The unused functions are only synthesized if they have MIR coverage, and
functions with the `no_coverage` attribute will not have been
instrumented with MIR coverage statements in the first place.
New tests confirm this.
Also, while adding tests, I updated resolved comments and FIXMEs in
other tests, and expanded comments and tests on one remaining issue that
is still not resolved.
r? `@tmandry`
cc: `@wesleywiser`
And adds tests to validate it still works.
There is an anticipated feature request to support a compiler flag that
only adds coverage for specific files (or perhaps mods). As I thought
about where that change would need to be supported, I realized that
checking the attribute in mapgen (for unused functions) was unnecessary.
The unused functions are only synthesized if they have MIR coverage, and
functions with the `no_coverage` attribute will not have been
instrumented with MIR coverage statements in the first place.
New tests confirm this.
Also, while adding tests, I updated resolved comments and FIXMEs in
other tests.
The Eq trait has a special hidden function. MIR `InstrumentCoverage`
would add this function to the coverage map, but it is never called, so
the `Eq` trait would always appear uncovered.
Fixes: #83601
The fix required creating a new function attribute `no_coverage` to mark
functions that should be ignored by `InstrumentCoverage` and the
coverage `mapgen` (during codegen).
While testing, I also noticed two other issues:
* spanview debug file output ICEd on a function with no body. The
workaround for this is included in this PR.
* `assert_*!()` macro coverage can appear covered if followed by another
`assert_*!()` macro. Normally they appear uncovered. I submitted a new
Issue #84561, and added a coverage test to demonstrate this issue.
A colleague contacted me and asked why Rust's counters start at 1, when
Clangs appear to start at 0. There is a reason why Rust's internal
counters start at 1 (see the docs), and I tried to keep them consistent
when codegenned to LLVM's coverage mapping format. LLVM should be
tolerant of missing counters, but as my colleague pointed out,
`llvm-cov` will silently fail to generate a coverage report for a
function based on LLVM's assumption that the counters are 0-based.
See:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/ProfileData/Coverage/CoverageMapping.cpp#L170
Apparently, if, for example, a function has no branches, it would have
exactly 1 counter. `CounterValues.size()` would be 1, and (with the
1-based index), the counter ID would be 1. This would fail the check
and abort reporting coverage for the function.
It turns out that by correcting for this during coverage map generation,
by subtracting 1 from the Rust Counter ID (both when generating the
counter increment intrinsic call, and when adding counters to the map),
some uncovered functions (including in tests) now appear covered! This
corrects the coverage for a few tests!
