This new description reflects the changes made in this PR, and should hopefully
be more useful to non-coverage developers who need to care about coverage
statements.
Previously, mappings were attached to individual coverage statements in MIR.
That necessitated special handling in MIR optimizations to avoid deleting those
statements, since otherwise codegen would be unable to reassemble the original
list of mappings.
With this change, a function's list of mappings is now attached to its MIR
body, and survives intact even if individual statements are deleted by
optimizations.
coverage: Allow each coverage statement to have multiple code regions
The original implementation of coverage instrumentation was built around the assumption that a coverage counter/expression would be associated with *up to one* code region. When it was discovered that *multiple* regions would sometimes need to share a counter, a workaround was found: for the remaining regions, the instrumentor would create a fresh expression that adds zero to the existing counter/expression.
That got the job done, but resulted in some awkward code, and produces unnecessarily complicated coverage maps in the final binary.
---
This PR removes that tension by changing `StatementKind::Coverage`'s code region field from `Option<CodeRegion>` to `Vec<CodeRegion>`.
The changes on the codegen side are fairly straightforward. As long as each `CoverageKind::Counter` only injects one `llvm.instrprof.increment`, the rest of coverage codegen is happy to handle multiple regions mapped to the same counter/expression, with only minor option-to-vec adjustments.
On the instrumentor/mir-transform side, we can get rid of the code that creates extra (x + 0) expressions. Instead we gather all of the code regions associated with a single BCB, and inject them all into one coverage statement.
---
There are several patches here but they can be divided in to three phases:
- Preparatory work
- Actually switching over to multiple regions per coverage statement
- Cleaning up
So viewing the patches individually may be easier.
It makes it sound like the `ExprKind` and `Rvalue` are supposed to represent all pointer related
casts, when in reality their just used to share a some enum variants. Make it clear there these
are only coercion to make it clear why only some pointer related "casts" are in the enum.
Evaluate place expression in `PlaceMention`
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102256 introduces a `PlaceMention(place)` MIR statement which keep trace of `let _ = place` statements from surface rust, but without semantics.
This PR proposes to change the behaviour of `let _ =` patterns with respect to the borrow-checker to verify that the bound place is live.
Specifically, consider this code:
```rust
let _ = {
let a = 5;
&a
};
```
This passes borrowck without error on stable. Meanwhile, replacing `_` by `_: _` or `_p` errors with "error[E0597]: `a` does not live long enough", [see playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=c448d25a7c205dc95a0967fe96bccce8).
This PR *does not* change how `_` patterns behave with respect to initializedness: it remains ok to bind a moved-from place to `_`.
The relevant test is `tests/ui/borrowck/let_underscore_temporary.rs`. Crater check found no regression.
For consistency, this PR changes miri to evaluate the place found in `PlaceMention`, and report eventual dangling pointers found within it.
r? `@RalfJung`
Unify terminology used in unwind action and terminator, and reflect
the fact that a nounwind panic is triggered instead of an immediate
abort is triggered for this terminator.
