LLVM uses the word "code" to refer to a particular kind of coverage mapping.
This unrelated usage of the word is confusing, and makes it harder to introduce
types whose names correspond to the LLVM classification of coverage kinds.
In the future, branch and MC/DC mappings might have expressions that don't
correspond to any single point in the control-flow graph. That makes it
trickier to keep track of which expressions should expect an `ExpressionUsed`
node.
We therefore sidestep that complexity by only performing `ExpressionUsed`
simplification for expressions associated directly with ordinary `Code`
mappings.
coverage: Memoize and simplify counter expressions
When creating coverage counter expressions as part of coverage instrumentation, we often end up creating obviously-redundant expressions like `c1 + (c0 - c1)`, which is equivalent to just `c0`.
To avoid doing so, this PR checks when we would create an expression matching one of 5 patterns, and uses the simplified form instead:
- `(a - b) + b` → `a`.
- `(a + b) - b` → `a`.
- `(a + b) - a` → `b`.
- `a + (b - a)` → `b`.
- `a - (a - b)` → `b`.
Of all the different ways to combine 3 operands and 2 operators, these are the patterns that allow simplification.
(Some of those patterns currently don't occur in practice, but are included anyway for completeness, to avoid having to add them later as branch coverage and MC/DC coverage support expands.)
---
This PR also adds memoization for newly-created (or newly-simplified) counter expressions, to avoid creating duplicates.
This currently makes no difference to the final mappings, but is expected to be useful for MC/DC coverage of match expressions, as proposed by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124278#issuecomment-2106754753.
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.
Remove many `#[macro_use] extern crate foo` items
This requires the addition of more `use` items, which often make the code more verbose. But they also make the code easier to read, because `#[macro_use]` obscures where macros are defined.
r? `@fee1-dead`
Add decision_depth field to TVBitmapUpdate/CondBitmapUpdate statements
Add decision_depth field to BcbMappingKinds MCDCBranch and MCDCDecision
Add decision_depth field to MCDCBranchSpan and MCDCDecisionSpan
Some of the marker statements used by coverage are added during MIR building
for use by the InstrumentCoverage pass (during analysis), and are not needed
afterwards.
There are cases where coverage instrumentation wants to show a span for some
syntax element, but there is no MIR node that naturally carries that span, so
the instrumentor can't see it.
MIR building can now use this new kind of coverage statement to deliberately
include those spans in MIR, attached to a dummy statement that has no other
effect.
By default, `newtype_index!` types get a default `Encodable`/`Decodable`
impl. You can opt out of this with `custom_encodable`. Opting out is the
opposite to how Rust normally works with autogenerated (derived) impls.
This commit inverts the behaviour, replacing `custom_encodable` with
`encodable` which opts into the default `Encodable`/`Decodable` impl.
Only 23 of the 59 `newtype_index!` occurrences need `encodable`.
Even better, there were eight crates with a dependency on
`rustc_serialize` just from unused default `Encodable`/`Decodable`
impls. This commit removes that dependency from those eight crates.
Even though expression details are now stored in the info structure, we still
need to inject `ExpressionUsed` statements into MIR, because if one is missing
during codegen then we know that it was optimized out and we can remap all of
its associated code regions to zero.
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 codegen can now allocate arrays based on the number of
counters/expressions originally used by the instrumentor.
The existing query that inspects coverage statements is still used for
determining the number of counters passed to `llvm.instrprof.increment`. If
some high-numbered counters were removed by MIR optimizations, the instrumented
binary can potentially use less memory and disk space at runtime.
This allows coverage information to be attached to the function as a whole when
appropriate, instead of being smuggled through coverage statements in the
function's basic blocks.
As an example, this patch moves the `function_source_hash` value out of
individual `CoverageKind::Counter` statements and into the per-function info.
When synthesizing unused functions for coverage purposes, the absence of this
info is taken to indicate that a function was not eligible for coverage and
should not be synthesized.
When these methods were originally written, I wasn't aware that
`newtype_index!` already supports addition with ordinary numbers, without
needing to unwrap and re-wrap.
The LLVM API that we use to encode coverage mappings already has its own code
for removing unused coverage expressions and renumbering the rest.
This lets us get rid of our own complex renumbering code, making it easier to
change our coverage code in other ways.
Operand types are now tracked explicitly, so there is no need to reserve ID 0
for the special always-zero counter.
As part of the renumbering, this change fixes an off-by-one error in the way
counters were counted by the `coverageinfo` query. As a result, functions
should now have exactly the number of counters they actually need, instead of
always having an extra counter that is never used.
Operand types are now tracked explicitly, so there is no need for expression
IDs to avoid counter IDs by descending from `u32::MAX`. Instead they can just
count up from 0, and can be used directly as indices when necessary.
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.
The actual motivation here is to prevent `rustfmt` from suddenly reformatting
these enum variants onto a single line, when they become slightly shorter in
the future.
But there's no harm in adding some helpful documentation at the same time.
Remove the `..` from the body, only a few invocations used it and it's
inconsistent with rust syntax.
Use `;` instead of `,` between consts. As the Rust syntax gods inteded.
This removes the `custom` format functionality as its only user was
trivially migrated to using a normal format.
If a new use case for a custom formatting impl pops up, you can add it
back.
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!
