coverage: Pass coverage mappings to LLVM as separate structs #131956
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
Zalathar
added
the
A-code-coverage
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
llvm-counters
branch
from
ce4cd55
to
f6db3c3
Compare
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
llvm-counters
branch
from
f6db3c3
to
d1bf77e
Compare
Swatinem
approved these changes
Oct 20, 2024
|
r? compiler-errors @bors r=compiler-errors,Swatinem |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 24, 2024
Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#130225 (Rename Receiver -> LegacyReceiver) - rust-lang#131169 (Fix `target_vendor` in QNX Neutrino targets) - rust-lang#131623 (misc cleanups) - rust-lang#131756 (Deeply normalize `TypeTrace` when reporting type error in new solver) - rust-lang#131898 (minor `*dyn` cast cleanup) - rust-lang#131909 (Prevent overflowing enum cast from ICEing) - rust-lang#131930 (Don't allow test revisions that conflict with built in cfgs) - rust-lang#131956 (coverage: Pass coverage mappings to LLVM as separate structs) - rust-lang#132076 (HashStable for rustc_feature::Features: stop hashing compile-time constant) - rust-lang#132088 (Print safety correctly in extern static items) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 24, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#131956 - Zalathar:llvm-counters, r=compiler-errors,Swatinem coverage: Pass coverage mappings to LLVM as separate structs Instead of trying to cram *N* different kinds of coverage mapping data into a single list for FFI, pass *N* different lists of simpler structs. This avoids the need to fill unused fields with dummy values, and avoids the need to tag structs with their underlying kind. It also lets us call the dedicated LLVM constructors for each different mapping type, instead of having to go through the complex general-purpose constructor. Even though this adds multiple new structs to the FFI surface area, the resulting C++ code is simpler and shorter. --- I've structured this mostly as a single atomic patch, rather than a series of incremental changes, because that avoids the need to make fiddly fixes to code that is about to be deleted anyway.
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.
Instead of trying to cram N different kinds of coverage mapping data into a single list for FFI, pass N different lists of simpler structs.
This avoids the need to fill unused fields with dummy values, and avoids the need to tag structs with their underlying kind. It also lets us call the dedicated LLVM constructors for each different mapping type, instead of having to go through the complex general-purpose constructor.
Even though this adds multiple new structs to the FFI surface area, the resulting C++ code is simpler and shorter.
I've structured this mostly as a single atomic patch, rather than a series of incremental changes, because that avoids the need to make fiddly fixes to code that is about to be deleted anyway.