coverage: Check for async fn explicitly, without needing a heuristic
#119155
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
We have coverage tests that use async functions, but none that use async blocks.
This reduces the risk of mixing up `fn_source_span` and `body_span`, and makes it easier to pass along additional fields as needed.
The old code used a heuristic to detect async functions and adjust their coverage spans to produce better output. But there's no need to resort to a heuristic when we can just check whether the current function is actually an `async fn`.
|
(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
added
the
A-code-coverage
|
Seeing #119034 (comment) makes me think this is going to get rerolled as well, but I'm not familiar with the etiquette of doing so myself. |
compiler-errors
approved these changes
Dec 20, 2023
|
@bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2023
…llaumeGomez Rollup of 3 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#119115 (Update documentation for `--env` compilation flag) - rust-lang#119155 (coverage: Check for `async fn` explicitly, without needing a heuristic) - rust-lang#119159 (Update LLVM submodule) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2023
Rollup merge of rust-lang#119155 - Zalathar:async-fn, r=compiler-errors coverage: Check for `async fn` explicitly, without needing a heuristic The old code used a heuristic to detect async functions and adjust their coverage spans to produce better output. But there's no need to resort to a heuristic when we can just look back at the original definition and check whether the current function is actually an `async fn`. In addition to being generally nicer, this also gets rid of the one piece of code that specifically cares about `CoverageSpan::is_closure` representing an actual closure. All remaining code that inspects that field just uses it as an indication that the span is a hole that should be carved out of other spans, and then discarded. That opens up the possibility of introducing other kinds of “hole” spans, e.g. for nested functions/types/macros, and having them all behave uniformly. --- `@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
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.
The old code used a heuristic to detect async functions and adjust their coverage spans to produce better output. But there's no need to resort to a heuristic when we can just look back at the original definition and check whether the current function is actually an
async fn.In addition to being generally nicer, this also gets rid of the one piece of code that specifically cares about
CoverageSpan::is_closurerepresenting an actual closure. All remaining code that inspects that field just uses it as an indication that the span is a hole that should be carved out of other spans, and then discarded.That opens up the possibility of introducing other kinds of “hole” spans, e.g. for nested functions/types/macros, and having them all behave uniformly.
@rustbot label +A-code-coverage