coverage: Unexpand spans with find_ancestor_inside_same_ctxt
#119336
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
|
(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt |
|
@rustbot label +A-code-coverage |
rustbot
added
the
A-code-coverage
Zalathar
commented
Dec 27, 2023
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
find-ancestor
branch
from
c8c423b
to
9d461d3
Compare
petrochenkov
added
S-waiting-on-author
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
find-ancestor
branch
from
9d461d3
to
0045310
Compare
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
find-ancestor
branch
from
0045310
to
be6b059
Compare
|
@rustbot ready |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Swatinem
approved these changes
Dec 27, 2023
|
@bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 27, 2023
…nkov coverage: Unexpand spans with `find_ancestor_inside_same_ctxt` Back in rust-lang#118525 (comment) it was observed that our `unexpand_into_body_span` now looks very similar to `Span::find_ancestor_inside`. At the time I tried switching over, but doing so resulted in incorrect coverage mappings (or assertion failures), so I left a `FIXME` comment instead. After some investigation, I identified the two problems with my original approach: - I should have been using `find_ancestor_inside_same_ctxt` instead, since we want a span that's inside the body and has the same context as the body. - For async functions, we were actually using the post-expansion body span, which is why we needed to forcibly set the unexpanded span's context to match the body span. For body spans produced by macro-expansion, we already have special-case code to detect this and use the pre-expansion call site as the body span. By making this code also detect async desugaring, I was able to end up with a body span that works properly with `find_ancestor_inside_same_ctxt`, avoiding the need to forcibly change the span context.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 27, 2023
…iaskrgr Rollup of 3 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#119336 (coverage: Unexpand spans with `find_ancestor_inside_same_ctxt`) - rust-lang#119349 (refactor(liveness): move walk_expr outside of every match branch) - rust-lang#119359 (Simplify Parser::ident_or_error) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (8e34642): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 670.933s -> 670.201s (-0.11%) |
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.
Back in #118525 (comment) it was observed that our
unexpand_into_body_spannow looks very similar toSpan::find_ancestor_inside.At the time I tried switching over, but doing so resulted in incorrect coverage mappings (or assertion failures), so I left a
FIXMEcomment instead.After some investigation, I identified the two problems with my original approach:
find_ancestor_inside_same_ctxtinstead, since we want a span that's inside the body and has the same context as the body.find_ancestor_inside_same_ctxt, avoiding the need to forcibly change the span context.