Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[WIP] incomplete attempt to inject additional coverage for unused MIR #79392

Closed

Conversation

richkadel
Copy link
Contributor

Functions (including generics and including async function bodies (which
mimic closures with generics/type parameters) that aren't invoked are
not appearing in coverage reports. They don't get a zero (0) execution
count. They get nothing, and they don't appear in reports as "not
covered" code to be addressed.

I attempted to inject "Zero" counters for each of these, but llvm-cov
fails if the coverage map has a counter for a function that is non
defined.

@tmandry

Functions (including generics and including async function bodies (which
mimic closures with generics/type parameters) that aren't invoked are
not appearing in coverage reports. They don't get a zero (0) execution
count. They get nothing, and they don't appear in reports as "not
covered" code to be addressed.

I attempted to inject "Zero" counters for each of these, but `llvm-cov`
fails if the coverage map has a counter for a function that is non
defined.
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @petrochenkov

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Nov 24, 2020
@richkadel
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tmandry @wesleywiser

FYI, this doesn't solve the problem of adding coverage for MIR that was not promoted to a MonoItem, but I wanted to keep the code (in a separate PR) in case I want to build from it later.

Or it may never get used, which is fine.

Until we know more, I'm just saving a shapshot.

@richkadel
Copy link
Contributor Author

r? @tmandry

@richkadel
Copy link
Contributor Author

BTW, some test samples were added and/or modified, but the blessed "expected" files were not regenerated, so the PR will fail to build as it currently exists.

@richkadel
Copy link
Contributor Author

The lessons learned from this PR were successfully incorporated into PR #79109.

@richkadel richkadel closed this Nov 30, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants