coverage: Simplify some parts of the coverage span refiner #121019
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Swapping the direction of this merge produces the same results, but means that we never need to mutate `curr`.
Now that we never mutate `curr.span`, we don't need to store its original span separately.
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt |
rustbot
added
the
A-code-coverage
This requires some extra boilerplate, but in exchange it becomes much easier to see how each field and method is actually used.
Now that `prev` has its own dedicated struct, we can store the original span in that struct, instead of in a separate field in the refiner.
If we only check for duplicate spans when `prev` is unmodified, we reduce the number of situations that `update_pending_dups` needs to handle. This could potentially change the coverage spans we produce in some unknown corner cases, but none of our current coverage tests indicate any change.
oli-obk
approved these changes
Feb 13, 2024
|
@bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#114877 (unstable-book: add quick-edit link) - rust-lang#120548 (rustdoc: Fix handling of doc_auto_cfg feature for cfg attributes on glob reexport) - rust-lang#120549 (modify alias-relate to also normalize ambiguous opaques) - rust-lang#120959 (Remove good path delayed bugs) - rust-lang#120978 (match lowering: simplify block creation) - rust-lang#121019 (coverage: Simplify some parts of the coverage span refiner) - rust-lang#121021 (Extend intra-doc link chapter in the rustdoc book) - rust-lang#121031 (RustWrapper: adapt for coverage mapping API changes) Failed merges: - rust-lang#121014 (Remove `force_print_diagnostic`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#121019 - Zalathar:covspans, r=oli-obk coverage: Simplify some parts of the coverage span refiner This is another incremental step on my quest to dismantle the coverage span refiner into something more understandable and maintainable. The biggest change here is splitting up `CoverageSpan` into several more specific structs. Doing so reveals that most of the places that were using that struct only need a subset of its fields and methods. We can also get rid of separate tracking of `curr_original_span` and `prev_original_span`, by observing that `curr.span` never actually needs to be mutated, and that we can store `prev_original_span` directly in the dedicated struct for `prev`. `@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 12, 2024
coverage: Replace the old span refiner with a single function As more and more of the span refiner's functionality has been pulled out into separate early passes, it has finally reached the point where we can remove the rest of the old `SpansRefiner` code, and replace it with a single modestly-sized function. ~~There should be no change to the resulting coverage mappings, as demonstrated by the lack of changes to test output.~~ There is *almost* no change to the resulting coverage mappings. There are some minor changes to `loop` that on inspection appear to be neutral in terms of accuracy, with the old behaviour being a slightly-horrifying implementation detail of the old code, so I think they're acceptable. Previous work in this direction includes: - rust-lang#125921 - rust-lang#121019 - rust-lang#119208
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 12, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#126294 - Zalathar:spans-refiner, r=oli-obk coverage: Replace the old span refiner with a single function As more and more of the span refiner's functionality has been pulled out into separate early passes, it has finally reached the point where we can remove the rest of the old `SpansRefiner` code, and replace it with a single modestly-sized function. ~~There should be no change to the resulting coverage mappings, as demonstrated by the lack of changes to test output.~~ There is *almost* no change to the resulting coverage mappings. There are some minor changes to `loop` that on inspection appear to be neutral in terms of accuracy, with the old behaviour being a slightly-horrifying implementation detail of the old code, so I think they're acceptable. Previous work in this direction includes: - rust-lang#125921 - rust-lang#121019 - rust-lang#119208
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is another incremental step on my quest to dismantle the coverage span refiner into something more understandable and maintainable.
The biggest change here is splitting up
CoverageSpaninto several more specific structs. Doing so reveals that most of the places that were using that struct only need a subset of its fields and methods.We can also get rid of separate tracking of
curr_original_spanandprev_original_span, by observing thatcurr.spannever actually needs to be mutated, and that we can storeprev_original_spandirectly in the dedicated struct forprev.@rustbot label +A-code-coverage