-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
Inline functions called from add_coverage
#115058
Conversation
r? @fee1-dead (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
@rustbot label +A-code-coverage |
Yeah, these methods were left over from the SSA/LLVM split that was removed in #113355, so getting rid of them makes sense. |
I'm not familiar with codegen code. r? compiler |
This removes quite a bit of indirection and duplicated code related to getting the `FunctionCoverage`.
39cba67
to
2ceea9a
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me. 👍
@bors r+ |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (8c79e8d): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 632.335s -> 630.996s (-0.21%) |
This removes quite a bit of indirection and duplicated code related to getting the
FunctionCoverage
.CC @Zalathar