You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Requested feature: Coverage checks are instrumented when using --coverage but these often end up being too frequent or redundant (due to, e.g., compiler optimizations or other procedures). They can definitely convert hard problems into infeasible ones due to the high number checks, we need to investigate how and come up with ways to reduce the number to the minimum if we continue to report along regular verification results. We could also exclude them from dependencies to improve performance.
Use case: Coverage results
Link to relevant documentation (Rust reference, Nomicon, RFC): #2612
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Requested feature: Coverage checks are instrumented when using
--coverage
but these often end up being too frequent or redundant (due to, e.g., compiler optimizations or other procedures). They can definitely convert hard problems into infeasible ones due to the high number checks, we need to investigate how and come up with ways to reduce the number to the minimum if we continue to report along regular verification results. We could also exclude them from dependencies to improve performance.Use case: Coverage results
Link to relevant documentation (Rust reference, Nomicon, RFC): #2612
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: