-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13k
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
coverage: Use a separate counter type and simplification step during counter creation #133849
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2a3b4a0
coverage: Extract `subtracted_sum` in counter creation
Zalathar 7ecc677
coverage: Rename `CounterIncrementSite` to just `Site`
Zalathar aca6dba
coverage: Use a single `make_phys_counter` method
Zalathar 44e4e45
coverage: Add an extra "transcribe" step after counter creation
Zalathar d7090f3
coverage: Use a separate counter type during counter creation
Zalathar ba08056
coverage: Remove the expression simplifier from `CoverageCounters`
Zalathar File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
41 changes: 41 additions & 0 deletions
41
compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/coverage/counters/tests.rs
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ | ||
use std::fmt::Debug; | ||
|
||
use super::sort_and_cancel; | ||
|
||
fn flatten<T>(input: Vec<Option<T>>) -> Vec<T> { | ||
input.into_iter().flatten().collect() | ||
} | ||
|
||
fn sort_and_cancel_and_flatten<T: Clone + Ord>(pos: Vec<T>, neg: Vec<T>) -> (Vec<T>, Vec<T>) { | ||
let (pos_actual, neg_actual) = sort_and_cancel(pos, neg); | ||
(flatten(pos_actual), flatten(neg_actual)) | ||
} | ||
|
||
#[track_caller] | ||
fn check_test_case<T: Clone + Debug + Ord>( | ||
pos: Vec<T>, | ||
neg: Vec<T>, | ||
pos_expected: Vec<T>, | ||
neg_expected: Vec<T>, | ||
) { | ||
eprintln!("pos = {pos:?}; neg = {neg:?}"); | ||
let output = sort_and_cancel_and_flatten(pos, neg); | ||
assert_eq!(output, (pos_expected, neg_expected)); | ||
} | ||
|
||
#[test] | ||
fn cancellation() { | ||
let cases: &[(Vec<u32>, Vec<u32>, Vec<u32>, Vec<u32>)] = &[ | ||
(vec![], vec![], vec![], vec![]), | ||
(vec![4, 2, 1, 5, 3], vec![], vec![1, 2, 3, 4, 5], vec![]), | ||
(vec![5, 5, 5, 5, 5], vec![5], vec![5, 5, 5, 5], vec![]), | ||
(vec![1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3], vec![1, 2, 3], vec![1, 2, 3], vec![]), | ||
(vec![1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3], vec![2, 4, 2], vec![1, 1, 3, 3], vec![4]), | ||
]; | ||
|
||
for (pos, neg, pos_expected, neg_expected) in cases { | ||
check_test_case(pos.to_vec(), neg.to_vec(), pos_expected.to_vec(), neg_expected.to_vec()); | ||
// Same test case, but with its inputs flipped and its outputs flipped. | ||
check_test_case(neg.to_vec(), pos.to_vec(), neg_expected.to_vec(), pos_expected.to_vec()); | ||
} | ||
} |
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
So this is basically a normalization if there are no old counters and a system for keeping the diff small if there are old counters?
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.
This is kind of tricky to explain, but it's also the whole crux of this PR, so I should try.
We can think of this code as going through a series of refactoring stages:
CoverageCounters
(status quo)CoverageCounters
→Transcriber
→ simplifiedCoverageCounters
FxHashMap<Site, SiteCounter>
→Transcriber
→ simplifiedCoverageCounters
The main goal of introducing
Transcriber
as a middle layer is so that the part beforeTranscriber
can be changed to not be tied toCoverageCounters
. To make that feasible, we need to go through the intermediate step of having two differentCoverageCounters
(old and new), so that we can then replace the first one with something else.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.
The fact that final
CoverageCounters
is simpler than the original one starts off as being a bonus extra, but it also lets the earlier steps not care so much about producing “optimal” results in a single pass. I expect that to be a big help in future changes to how counter creation works.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.
That makes sense, thanks!