coverage: Regression test for "function name is empty" bug #144616
Merged
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
The bug was triggered by a particular usage of the `?` try operator in a proc-macro expansion. Thanks to lqd for the minimization. Co-authored-by: Rémy Rakic <[email protected]>
Zalathar
added
the
A-code-coverage
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
r? jieyouxu @bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Zalathar
added a commit
to Zalathar/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2025
coverage: Regression test for "function name is empty" bug Regression test for rust-lang#141577, which was triggered by rust-lang#144298. The bug was triggered by a particular usage of the `?` try operator in a proc-macro expansion. Thanks to lqd for the minimization at rust-lang#144571 (comment). --- I have manually verified that reverting the relevant follow-up fixes (rust-lang#144480 and rust-lang#144530) causes this test to reproduce the bug: ```sh git revert -m1 8aa3d41 c462895 ``` --- r? compiler
Zalathar
added a commit
to Zalathar/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2025
coverage: Regression test for "function name is empty" bug Regression test for rust-lang#141577, which was triggered by rust-lang#144298. The bug was triggered by a particular usage of the `?` try operator in a proc-macro expansion. Thanks to lqd for the minimization at rust-lang#144571 (comment). --- I have manually verified that reverting the relevant follow-up fixes (rust-lang#144480 and rust-lang#144530) causes this test to reproduce the bug: ```sh git revert -m1 8aa3d41 c462895 ``` --- r? compiler
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2025
Rollup of 11 pull requests Successful merges: - #143883 (Add `--link-targets-dir` argument to linkchecker) - #144236 (Add `core::mem::DropGuard`) - #144303 (Consolidate staging for `rustc_private` tools) - #144367 (Move dist-apple-various from x86_64 to aarch64) - #144539 (constify with_exposed_provenance) - #144569 (rustc-dev-guide subtree update) - #144573 (Raw Pointers are Constant PatKinds too) - #144575 (fixed typo chunks->as_chunks) - #144578 (Ensure correct aligement of rustc_hir::Lifetime on platforms with lower default alignments.) - #144582 (fix `Atomic*::as_ptr` wording) - #144616 (coverage: Regression test for "function name is empty" bug) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2025
Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - #143883 (Add `--link-targets-dir` argument to linkchecker) - #144236 (Add `core::mem::DropGuard`) - #144367 (Move dist-apple-various from x86_64 to aarch64) - #144539 (constify with_exposed_provenance) - #144569 (rustc-dev-guide subtree update) - #144573 (Raw Pointers are Constant PatKinds too) - #144575 (fixed typo chunks->as_chunks) - #144578 (Ensure correct aligement of rustc_hir::Lifetime on platforms with lower default alignments.) - #144582 (fix `Atomic*::as_ptr` wording) - #144616 (coverage: Regression test for "function name is empty" bug) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2025
Rollup merge of #144616 - Zalathar:try-in-macro, r=jieyouxu coverage: Regression test for "function name is empty" bug Regression test for #141577, which was triggered by #144298. The bug was triggered by a particular usage of the `?` try operator in a proc-macro expansion. Thanks to lqd for the minimization at #144571 (comment). --- I have manually verified that reverting the relevant follow-up fixes (#144480 and #144530) causes this test to reproduce the bug: ```sh git revert -m1 8aa3d41 c462895 ``` --- r? compiler
Zalathar
added a commit
to Zalathar/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2025
coverage: Re-land "Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation" This allows us to assume that coverage spans will only be discarded during codegen in very unusual situations. --- This seemingly-simple change has a rather messy history: - rust-lang#140847 - rust-lang#141650 - rust-lang#144298 - rust-lang#144480 Since then, a number of related changes have landed that should make it reasonable to try again: - rust-lang#144530 - rust-lang#144560 - rust-lang#144616 In particular, we have multiple fixes/mitigations, and a confirmed regression test for the original bug that is not triggered by re-landing the changes in this PR.
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2025
Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang/rust#143883 (Add `--link-targets-dir` argument to linkchecker) - rust-lang/rust#144236 (Add `core::mem::DropGuard`) - rust-lang/rust#144367 (Move dist-apple-various from x86_64 to aarch64) - rust-lang/rust#144539 (constify with_exposed_provenance) - rust-lang/rust#144569 (rustc-dev-guide subtree update) - rust-lang/rust#144573 (Raw Pointers are Constant PatKinds too) - rust-lang/rust#144575 (fixed typo chunks->as_chunks) - rust-lang/rust#144578 (Ensure correct aligement of rustc_hir::Lifetime on platforms with lower default alignments.) - rust-lang/rust#144582 (fix `Atomic*::as_ptr` wording) - rust-lang/rust#144616 (coverage: Regression test for "function name is empty" bug) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Zalathar
added a commit
to Zalathar/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2025
coverage: Re-land "Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation" This allows us to assume that coverage spans will only be discarded during codegen in very unusual situations. --- This seemingly-simple change has a rather messy history: - rust-lang#140847 - rust-lang#141650 - rust-lang#144298 - rust-lang#144480 Since then, a number of related changes have landed that should make it reasonable to try again: - rust-lang#144530 - rust-lang#144560 - rust-lang#144616 In particular, we have multiple fixes/mitigations, and a confirmed regression test for the original bug that is not triggered by re-landing the changes in this PR.
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2025
Rollup merge of #144663 - Zalathar:empty-span, r=petrochenkov coverage: Re-land "Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation" This allows us to assume that coverage spans will only be discarded during codegen in very unusual situations. --- This seemingly-simple change has a rather messy history: - #140847 - #141650 - #144298 - #144480 Since then, a number of related changes have landed that should make it reasonable to try again: - #144530 - #144560 - #144616 In particular, we have multiple fixes/mitigations, and a confirmed regression test for the original bug that is not triggered by re-landing the changes in this PR.
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.
Regression test for #141577, which was triggered by #144298.
The bug was triggered by a particular usage of the
?try operator in a proc-macro expansion.Thanks to lqd for the minimization at #144571 (comment).
I have manually verified that reverting the relevant follow-up fixes (#144480 and #144530) causes this test to reproduce the bug:
r? compiler