Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@Zalathar
Copy link
Member

This PR is another incremental step towards expansion region support in coverage instrumentation.

When preparing coverage mappings for a function, we extract “raw” spans from MIR, and then use “hole” spans extracted from HIR to avoid overlap with nested items and closures. That hole-carving process was historically built around the assumption that there would be one set of spans and holes per function, but expansion region support will need to invalidate that assumption.

Therefore, to be more friendly to future work on expansion regions, this PR associates each hole span with its corresponding node in the expansion tree, and makes the span refinement step obtain holes from the current node.

There should be no change to compiler output.

This is an incremental step towards making the expansion tree central to
coverage mapping creation, which will be needed for proper expansion region
support.
This also replaces `push_covspan` with a separate covspan-filtering step,
because the relevant code is being reindented anyway.
This will make it easier to perform span refinement for child expansions.
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Nov 11, 2025

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Nov 11, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Nov 11, 2025

r? @JonathanBrouwer

rustbot has assigned @JonathanBrouwer.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@JonathanBrouwer
Copy link
Contributor

@bors r+ rollup

Code looks correct to me. Just some feedback, would be nice if we could put some doc comments on ExpnTree to document exactly what an expansion tree is, as I am new to this part of the codebase and it took me a bit to figure out how they work and why this change makes sense.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 13, 2025

📌 Commit 696690b has been approved by JonathanBrouwer

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 13, 2025
Zalathar added a commit to Zalathar/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 13, 2025
…uwer

coverage: Associate hole spans with expansion tree nodes

This PR is another incremental step towards expansion region support in coverage instrumentation.

When preparing coverage mappings for a function, we extract “raw” spans from MIR, and then use “hole” spans extracted from HIR to avoid overlap with nested items and closures. That hole-carving process was historically built around the assumption that there would be one set of spans and holes per function, but expansion region support will need to invalidate that assumption.

Therefore, to be more friendly to future work on expansion regions, this PR associates each hole span with its corresponding node in the expansion tree, and makes the span refinement step obtain holes from the current node.

There should be no change to compiler output.
Zalathar added a commit to Zalathar/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 13, 2025
…uwer

coverage: Associate hole spans with expansion tree nodes

This PR is another incremental step towards expansion region support in coverage instrumentation.

When preparing coverage mappings for a function, we extract “raw” spans from MIR, and then use “hole” spans extracted from HIR to avoid overlap with nested items and closures. That hole-carving process was historically built around the assumption that there would be one set of spans and holes per function, but expansion region support will need to invalidate that assumption.

Therefore, to be more friendly to future work on expansion regions, this PR associates each hole span with its corresponding node in the expansion tree, and makes the span refinement step obtain holes from the current node.

There should be no change to compiler output.
Zalathar added a commit to Zalathar/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 13, 2025
…uwer

coverage: Associate hole spans with expansion tree nodes

This PR is another incremental step towards expansion region support in coverage instrumentation.

When preparing coverage mappings for a function, we extract “raw” spans from MIR, and then use “hole” spans extracted from HIR to avoid overlap with nested items and closures. That hole-carving process was historically built around the assumption that there would be one set of spans and holes per function, but expansion region support will need to invalidate that assumption.

Therefore, to be more friendly to future work on expansion regions, this PR associates each hole span with its corresponding node in the expansion tree, and makes the span refinement step obtain holes from the current node.

There should be no change to compiler output.
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 14, 2025
Rollup of 14 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - #146978 (Emit error when using path-segment keyword as cfg pred)
 - #148543 (Correctly link to associated trait items in reexports)
 - #148808 (Some resolve cleanups)
 - #148812 (coverage: Associate hole spans with expansion tree nodes )
 - #148826 (CStr docs: Fix CStr vs &CStr confusion)
 - #148850 (Implement `Read::read_array`)
 - #148867 (Refactor `Box::take`)
 - #148870 (Remove unused LLVMModuleRef argument)
 - #148878 (error when ABI does not support guaranteed tail calls)
 - #148901 (Disable rustdoc-test-builder test partially for SGX target.)
 - #148902 (add missing s390x target feature to std detect test)
 - #148904 (waffle: stop watching codegen ssa)
 - #148906 (Expose fmt::Arguments::from_str as unstable.)
 - #148907 (add assembly test for infinite recursion with `become`)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Zalathar added a commit to Zalathar/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 14, 2025
…uwer

coverage: Associate hole spans with expansion tree nodes

This PR is another incremental step towards expansion region support in coverage instrumentation.

When preparing coverage mappings for a function, we extract “raw” spans from MIR, and then use “hole” spans extracted from HIR to avoid overlap with nested items and closures. That hole-carving process was historically built around the assumption that there would be one set of spans and holes per function, but expansion region support will need to invalidate that assumption.

Therefore, to be more friendly to future work on expansion regions, this PR associates each hole span with its corresponding node in the expansion tree, and makes the span refinement step obtain holes from the current node.

There should be no change to compiler output.
Zalathar added a commit to Zalathar/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 14, 2025
…uwer

coverage: Associate hole spans with expansion tree nodes

This PR is another incremental step towards expansion region support in coverage instrumentation.

When preparing coverage mappings for a function, we extract “raw” spans from MIR, and then use “hole” spans extracted from HIR to avoid overlap with nested items and closures. That hole-carving process was historically built around the assumption that there would be one set of spans and holes per function, but expansion region support will need to invalidate that assumption.

Therefore, to be more friendly to future work on expansion regions, this PR associates each hole span with its corresponding node in the expansion tree, and makes the span refinement step obtain holes from the current node.

There should be no change to compiler output.
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 14, 2025
Rollup of 15 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - #148543 (Correctly link to associated trait items in reexports)
 - #148808 (Some resolve cleanups)
 - #148812 (coverage: Associate hole spans with expansion tree nodes )
 - #148826 (CStr docs: Fix CStr vs &CStr confusion)
 - #148850 (Implement `Read::read_array`)
 - #148867 (Refactor `Box::take`)
 - #148870 (Remove unused LLVMModuleRef argument)
 - #148878 (error when ABI does not support guaranteed tail calls)
 - #148901 (Disable rustdoc-test-builder test partially for SGX target.)
 - #148902 (add missing s390x target feature to std detect test)
 - #148904 (waffle: stop watching codegen ssa)
 - #148906 (Expose fmt::Arguments::from_str as unstable.)
 - #148907 (add assembly test for infinite recursion with `become`)
 - #148928 (Move & adjust some `!`-adjacent tests)
 - #148929 (ignore `build-rust-analyzer` even if it's a symlink)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit fead508 into rust-lang:main Nov 14, 2025
11 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.93.0 milestone Nov 14, 2025
@Zalathar Zalathar deleted the expansions branch November 14, 2025 08:47
rust-timer added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 14, 2025
Rollup merge of #148812 - Zalathar:expansions, r=JonathanBrouwer

coverage: Associate hole spans with expansion tree nodes

This PR is another incremental step towards expansion region support in coverage instrumentation.

When preparing coverage mappings for a function, we extract “raw” spans from MIR, and then use “hole” spans extracted from HIR to avoid overlap with nested items and closures. That hole-carving process was historically built around the assumption that there would be one set of spans and holes per function, but expansion region support will need to invalidate that assumption.

Therefore, to be more friendly to future work on expansion regions, this PR associates each hole span with its corresponding node in the expansion tree, and makes the span refinement step obtain holes from the current node.

There should be no change to compiler output.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants