coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen #144298
+57
−46
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
This allows us to assume that coverage spans will only be discarded during codegen in very unusual situations.
Zalathar
added
the
A-code-coverage
|
rustbot has assigned @compiler-errors. Use |
rustbot
added
A-LLVM
|
Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt |
|
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
rust-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 22, 2025
coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-perf
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Finished benchmarking commit (67f76fa): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action neededBenchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf. @bors rollup=never Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. CyclesResults (primary 2.2%, secondary 3.6%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 463.984s -> 466.318s (0.50%) |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-perf
wesleywiser
approved these changes
Jul 22, 2025
|
@bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
jhpratt
added a commit
to jhpratt/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen This re-lands the part of rust-lang#140847 that was (hopefully) not responsible for the coverage-instrumentation regressions that caused that PR to be reverted. --- Enlarging empty spans was historically performed during MIR instrumentation, but had to be moved to codegen as part of larger changes in rust-lang#134497, leading to the status quo. But now there should be no reason not to move that step back to its more logical home in instrumentaion.
jhpratt
added a commit
to jhpratt/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen This re-lands the part of rust-lang#140847 that was (hopefully) not responsible for the coverage-instrumentation regressions that caused that PR to be reverted. --- Enlarging empty spans was historically performed during MIR instrumentation, but had to be moved to codegen as part of larger changes in rust-lang#134497, leading to the status quo. But now there should be no reason not to move that step back to its more logical home in instrumentaion.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen This re-lands the part of rust-lang#140847 that was (hopefully) not responsible for the coverage-instrumentation regressions that caused that PR to be reverted. --- Enlarging empty spans was historically performed during MIR instrumentation, but had to be moved to codegen as part of larger changes in rust-lang#134497, leading to the status quo. But now there should be no reason not to move that step back to its more logical home in instrumentaion.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen This re-lands the part of rust-lang#140847 that was (hopefully) not responsible for the coverage-instrumentation regressions that caused that PR to be reverted. --- Enlarging empty spans was historically performed during MIR instrumentation, but had to be moved to codegen as part of larger changes in rust-lang#134497, leading to the status quo. But now there should be no reason not to move that step back to its more logical home in instrumentaion.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen This re-lands the part of rust-lang#140847 that was (hopefully) not responsible for the coverage-instrumentation regressions that caused that PR to be reverted. --- Enlarging empty spans was historically performed during MIR instrumentation, but had to be moved to codegen as part of larger changes in rust-lang#134497, leading to the status quo. But now there should be no reason not to move that step back to its more logical home in instrumentaion.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - #144173 (Remove tidy checks for `tests/ui/issues/`) - #144234 (Fix broken TLS destructors on 32-bit win7) - #144239 (Clean `rustc/parse/src/lexer` to improve maintainability) - #144247 (coretests/num: use ldexp instead of hard-coding a power of 2) - #144256 (Don't ICE on non-TypeId metadata within TypeId) - #144290 (update tests/ui/SUMMARY.md) - #144292 (mbe: Use concrete type for `get_unused_rule`) - #144298 (coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen) - #144311 (Add powerpc64le-unknown-linux-musl to CI rustc targets) - #144315 (bootstrap: add package.json and package-lock.json to dist tarball) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen This re-lands the part of rust-lang#140847 that was (hopefully) not responsible for the coverage-instrumentation regressions that caused that PR to be reverted. --- Enlarging empty spans was historically performed during MIR instrumentation, but had to be moved to codegen as part of larger changes in rust-lang#134497, leading to the status quo. But now there should be no reason not to move that step back to its more logical home in instrumentaion.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - #144173 (Remove tidy checks for `tests/ui/issues/`) - #144234 (Fix broken TLS destructors on 32-bit win7) - #144239 (Clean `rustc/parse/src/lexer` to improve maintainability) - #144247 (coretests/num: use ldexp instead of hard-coding a power of 2) - #144256 (Don't ICE on non-TypeId metadata within TypeId) - #144290 (update tests/ui/SUMMARY.md) - #144292 (mbe: Use concrete type for `get_unused_rule`) - #144298 (coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen) - #144311 (Add powerpc64le-unknown-linux-musl to CI rustc targets) - #144315 (bootstrap: add package.json and package-lock.json to dist tarball) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup try-job: x86_64-gnu-aux
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - #144173 (Remove tidy checks for `tests/ui/issues/`) - #144234 (Fix broken TLS destructors on 32-bit win7) - #144239 (Clean `rustc/parse/src/lexer` to improve maintainability) - #144256 (Don't ICE on non-TypeId metadata within TypeId) - #144290 (update tests/ui/SUMMARY.md) - #144292 (mbe: Use concrete type for `get_unused_rule`) - #144298 (coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen) - #144311 (Add powerpc64le-unknown-linux-musl to CI rustc targets) - #144315 (bootstrap: add package.json and package-lock.json to dist tarball) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
Rollup merge of #144298 - Zalathar:empty-span, r=wesleywiser coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen This re-lands the part of #140847 that was (hopefully) not responsible for the coverage-instrumentation regressions that caused that PR to be reverted. --- Enlarging empty spans was historically performed during MIR instrumentation, but had to be moved to codegen as part of larger changes in #134497, leading to the status quo. But now there should be no reason not to move that step back to its more logical home in instrumentaion.
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.
This re-lands the part of #140847 that was (hopefully) not responsible for the coverage-instrumentation regressions that caused that PR to be reverted.
Enlarging empty spans was historically performed during MIR instrumentation, but had to be moved to codegen as part of larger changes in #134497, leading to the status quo. But now there should be no reason not to move that step back to its more logical home in instrumentaion.