You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Auto merge of rust-lang#124255 - RenjiSann:renji/mcdc-nested-expressions, r=Zalathar
MCDC coverage: support nested decision coverage
rust-lang#123409 provided the initial MCDC coverage implementation.
As referenced in rust-lang#124144, it does not currently support "nested" decisions, like the following example :
```rust
fn nested_if_in_condition(a: bool, b: bool, c: bool) {
if a && if b || c { true } else { false } {
say("yes");
} else {
say("no");
}
}
```
Note that there is an if-expression (`if b || c ...`) embedded inside a boolean expression in the decision of an outer if-expression.
This PR proposes a workaround for this cases, by introducing a Decision context stack, and by handing several `temporary condition bitmaps` instead of just one.
When instrumenting boolean expressions, if the current node is a leaf condition (i.e. not a `||`/`&&` logical operator nor a `!` not operator), we insert a new decision context, such that if there are more boolean expressions inside the condition, they are handled as separate expressions.
On the codegen LLVM side, we allocate as many `temp_cond_bitmap`s as necessary to handle the maximum encountered decision depth.
.expect("decision depth did not fit in u16, this is likely to be an instrumentation error")
213
232
}
214
233
215
234
// At first we assign ConditionIds for each sub expression.
@@ -253,19 +272,23 @@ impl MCDCState {
253
272
// - If the op is AND, the "false_next" of LHS and RHS should be the parent's "false_next". While "true_next" of the LHS is the RHS, the "true next" of RHS is the parent's "true_next".
254
273
// - If the op is OR, the "true_next" of LHS and RHS should be the parent's "true_next". While "false_next" of the LHS is the RHS, the "false next" of RHS is the parent's "false_next".
0 commit comments