ICE: coverage: attempt to add a 'Counter' to a BCB target with existing incoming edge counters
#122738
Labels
A-code-coverage
Area: Source-based code coverage (-Cinstrument-coverage)
C-bug
Category: This is a bug.
I-ICE
Issue: The compiler panicked, giving an Internal Compilation Error (ICE) ❄️
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Comments
matthiaskrgr
added
I-ICE
rustbot
added
the
needs-triage
matthiaskrgr
changed the title
attempt to add a 'Counter' to a BCB target with existing incoming edge countersICE: coverageattempt to add a 'Counter' to a BCB target with existing incoming edge
matthiaskrgr
changed the title
attempt to add a 'Counter' to a BCB target with existing incoming edgeattempt to add a 'Counter' to a BCB target with existing incoming edge counters
|
Further reduced: fn _test(n: bool) {
let true = n else { loop {} };
} |
|
(Also note that even before #117421 this presumably would have still ICEd, because the only thing we did with that error was unwrap it.) |
|
I think the assertion is just incorrect in this case. Normally a BCB will only have a physical counter if it has exactly one in-edge. If it has multiple in-edges, it will get an expression that sums up all of its in-edges, most of which will have physical counters. That's what the assertion is verifying. However, if a BCB has an out-edge back to itself (i.e. Perhaps the reason we haven't seen this before is that the other in-edge to the loop node usually happens to be the one chosen to get an expression, so the assertion never sees the two-counters case. |
|
I tried to fix the assertion itself, but that ended up being pretty complicated. The information we'd need isn't readily available in the place that we need it, and there's also a related assertion in Given that these assertions aren't load-bearing (the code should work fine even if it's violated), I'm inclined to just rip them out. They only exist as a holdover from the original implementation anyway. |
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this issue
Mar 20, 2024
coverage: Remove incorrect assertions from counter allocation These assertions detect situations where a BCB node (in the coverage graph) would have both a physical counter and one or more in-edge counters/expressions. For most BCBs that situation would indicate an implementation bug. However, it's perfectly fine in the case of a BCB having an edge that loops back to itself. Given the complexity and risk involved in fixing the assertions, and the fact that nothing relies on them actually being true, this patch just removes them instead. Fixes rust-lang#122738. `@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this issue
Mar 20, 2024
coverage: Remove incorrect assertions from counter allocation These assertions detect situations where a BCB node (in the coverage graph) would have both a physical counter and one or more in-edge counters/expressions. For most BCBs that situation would indicate an implementation bug. However, it's perfectly fine in the case of a BCB having an edge that loops back to itself. Given the complexity and risk involved in fixing the assertions, and the fact that nothing relies on them actually being true, this patch just removes them instead. Fixes rust-lang#122738. ``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this issue
Mar 20, 2024
coverage: Remove incorrect assertions from counter allocation These assertions detect situations where a BCB node (in the coverage graph) would have both a physical counter and one or more in-edge counters/expressions. For most BCBs that situation would indicate an implementation bug. However, it's perfectly fine in the case of a BCB having an edge that loops back to itself. Given the complexity and risk involved in fixing the assertions, and the fact that nothing relies on them actually being true, this patch just removes them instead. Fixes rust-lang#122738. ```@rustbot``` label +A-code-coverage
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this issue
Mar 20, 2024
coverage: Remove incorrect assertions from counter allocation These assertions detect situations where a BCB node (in the coverage graph) would have both a physical counter and one or more in-edge counters/expressions. For most BCBs that situation would indicate an implementation bug. However, it's perfectly fine in the case of a BCB having an edge that loops back to itself. Given the complexity and risk involved in fixing the assertions, and the fact that nothing relies on them actually being true, this patch just removes them instead. Fixes rust-lang#122738. ````@rustbot```` label +A-code-coverage
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this issue
Mar 21, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#122764 - Zalathar:loopy, r=oli-obk coverage: Remove incorrect assertions from counter allocation These assertions detect situations where a BCB node (in the coverage graph) would have both a physical counter and one or more in-edge counters/expressions. For most BCBs that situation would indicate an implementation bug. However, it's perfectly fine in the case of a BCB having an edge that loops back to itself. Given the complexity and risk involved in fixing the assertions, and the fact that nothing relies on them actually being true, this patch just removes them instead. Fixes rust-lang#122738. `````@rustbot````` label +A-code-coverage
jieyouxu
removed
the
needs-triage
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
auto-reduced (treereduce-rust):
original:
Version information
Command:
/home/matthias/.rustup/toolchains/master/bin/rustc -Cinstrument-coverageProgram output
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: