During coverage instrumentation, this variable always holds the coverage graph,
which is a simplified view of the MIR control-flow graph. The new name is
clearer in context, and also shorter.
Currently `await` is only counted towards coverage if the containing
function is suspended and resumed at least once. This is because it
expands to code which contains a branch on the discriminant of `Poll`.
By treating it like a branching macro (e.g. `assert!`), these
implementation details will be hidden from the coverage results.
As more and more of the span refiner's functionality has been pulled out into
separate early passes, it has finally reached the point where we can remove the
rest of the old `SpansRefiner` code, and replace it with a single
modestly-sized function.
Now that branch and MC/DC mappings have been split out into separate types and
vectors, this enum is no longer needed, since it only represents ordinary
"code" regions.
(We can revisit this decision if we ever add support for other region kinds,
such as skipped regions or expansion regions. But at that point, we might just
add new structs/vectors for those kinds as well.)
Add decision_depth field to TVBitmapUpdate/CondBitmapUpdate statements
Add decision_depth field to BcbMappingKinds MCDCBranch and MCDCDecision
Add decision_depth field to MCDCBranchSpan and MCDCDecisionSpan
This clears the way for larger changes to how branches are handled by the
coverage instrumentor, in order to support branch coverage for more language
constructs.
When refining covspans, we don't specifically care which ones represent
closures; we just want to know which ones represent "holes" that should be
carved out of other spans and then discarded.
(Closures are currently the only source of hole spans, but in the future we
might want to also create hole spans for nested items and inactive `#[cfg(..)]`
regions.)
If we only check for duplicate spans when `prev` is unmodified, we reduce the
number of situations that `update_pending_dups` needs to handle.
This could potentially change the coverage spans we produce in some unknown
corner cases, but none of our current coverage tests indicate any change.
This sidesteps the normal span refinement code in cases where we know that we
are only dealing with the special signature span that represents having called
an async function.
This is less elegant in some ways, since we no longer visit a BCB's spans as a
batch, but will make it much easier to add support for other kinds of coverage
mapping regions (e.g. branch regions or gap regions).
