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

Investigate how coverage checks affect performance #2642

Open
adpaco-aws opened this issue Jul 28, 2023 · 0 comments
Open

Investigate how coverage checks affect performance #2642

adpaco-aws opened this issue Jul 28, 2023 · 0 comments
Labels
[C] Feature / Enhancement A new feature request or enhancement to an existing feature.

Comments

@adpaco-aws
Copy link
Contributor

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

@adpaco-aws adpaco-aws added the [C] Feature / Enhancement A new feature request or enhancement to an existing feature. label Jul 28, 2023
@adpaco-aws adpaco-aws mentioned this issue Jul 28, 2023
4 tasks
@adpaco-aws adpaco-aws added this to the Coverage reports milestone Jul 31, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[C] Feature / Enhancement A new feature request or enhancement to an existing feature.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant