This makes it possible for other parts of counter-assignment to check whether a
node is guaranteed to end up with some kind of counter.
Switching from `impl Fn` to a concrete `&BitSet` just avoids the hassle of
trying to store a closure in a struct field, and currently there's no
foreseeable need for this information to not be a bitset.
This code can sometimes witness malformed coverage attributes in builds that
are going to fail, so use `span_delayed_bug` to avoid an inappropriate ICE in
that case.
Given that we directly access the graph predecessors/successors in so many
other places, and sometimes must do so to satisfy the borrow checker, there is
little value in having this trivial helper method.
- Look up the node's predecessors only once
- Get rid of some overly verbose logging
- Explain why some nodes need physical counters
- Extract a helper method to create and set a physical node counter
coverage: Clean up terminology in counter creation
Some of the terminology in this module is confusing, or has drifted out of sync with other parts of the coverage code.
This PR therefore renames some variables and methods, and adjusts comments and debug logging statements, to make things clearer and more consistent.
No functional changes, other than some small tweaks to debug logging.
Currently `await` is only counted towards coverage if the containing
function is suspended and resumed at least once. This is because it
expands to code which contains a branch on the discriminant of `Poll`.
By treating it like a branching macro (e.g. `assert!`), these
implementation details will be hidden from the coverage results.
Because that's now the only crate that uses it.
Moving stuff out of `rustc_middle` is always welcome.
I chose to use `impl crate::MirPass`/`impl crate::MirLint` (with
explicit `crate::`) everywhere because that's the only mention of
`MirPass`/`MirLint` used in all of these files. (Prior to this change,
`MirPass` was mostly imported via `use rustc_middle::mir::*` items.)
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.
Support tail calls in mir via `TerminatorKind::TailCall`
This is one of the interesting bits in tail call implementation — MIR support.
This adds a new `TerminatorKind` which represents a tail call:
```rust
TailCall {
func: Operand<'tcx>,
args: Vec<Operand<'tcx>>,
fn_span: Span,
},
```
*Structurally* this is very similar to a normal `Call` but is missing a few fields:
- `destination` — tail calls don't write to destination, instead they pass caller's destination to the callee (such that eventual `return` will write to the caller of the function that used tail call)
- `target` — similarly to `destination` tail calls pass the caller's return address to the callee, so there is nothing to do
- `unwind` — I _think_ this is applicable too, although it's a bit confusing
- `call_source` — `become` forbids operators and is not created as a lowering of something else; tail calls always come from HIR (at least for now)
It might be helpful to read the interpreter implementation to understand what `TailCall` means exactly, although I've tried documenting it too.
-----
There are a few `FIXME`-questions still left, ideally we'd be able to answer them during review ':)
-----
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@scottmcm` `@DrMeepster` `@JakobDegen`
These particular callers don't actually use the returned macro information, so
they can use a simpler span-unexpansion function that doesn't return it.
These things don't need to be `Vec`s; boxed slices are enough.
The frequent one here is call arguments, but MIR building knows the number of arguments from the THIR, so the collect is always getting the allocation right in the first place, and thus this shouldn't ever add the shrink-in-place overhead.
coverage: Add debugging flag `-Zcoverage-options=no-mir-spans`
When set, this flag skips the code that normally extracts coverage spans from MIR statements and terminators. That sometimes makes it easier to debug branch coverage and MC/DC coverage instrumentation, because the coverage output is less noisy.
For internal debugging only. If future code changes would make it hard to keep supporting this flag, it should be removed at that time.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
Rename `InstanceDef` -> `InstanceKind`
Renames `InstanceDef` to `InstanceKind`. The `Def` here is confusing, and makes it hard to distinguish `Instance` and `InstanceDef`. `InstanceKind` makes this more obvious, since it's really just describing what *kind* of instance we have.
Not sure if this is large enough to warrant a types team MCP -- it's only 53 files. I don't personally think it does, but happy to write one if anyone disagrees. cc ``@rust-lang/types``
r? types
When set, this flag skips the code that normally extracts coverage spans from
MIR statements and terminators. That sometimes makes it easier to debug branch
coverage and MC/DC coverage, because the coverage output is less noisy.
For internal debugging only. If other code changes would make it hard to keep
supporting this flag, remove it.
coverage: Several small improvements to graph code
This PR combines a few small improvements to coverage graph handling code:
- Remove some low-value implementation tests that were getting in the way of other changes.
- Clean up `pub` visibility.
- Flatten some code using let-else.
- Prefer `.copied()` over `.cloned()`.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
These tests might have originally been useful as an implementation aid, but now
they don't provide enough value to justify the burden of updating them as the
underlying code changes.
The code they test is still exercised by the main end-to-end coverage tests.
