From c81be68fb49cf5798fe44cedd56cb91bdc61d011 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zalathar Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 11:19:52 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] coverage: Remove confusing comments from `CoverageKind` These comments appear to be inspired by the similar comments on `CounterIncrement` and `ExpressionUsed`. But those comments refer to specific simplification steps performed during coverage codegen, and there is no corresponding step for the MC/DC coverage statements. If these statements do not survive optimization, they will simply not participate in code generation, just like any other statement. --- compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/coverage.rs | 6 ------ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/coverage.rs b/compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/coverage.rs index 477303e2434f4..7f9a5a366d74e 100644 --- a/compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/coverage.rs +++ b/compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/coverage.rs @@ -129,17 +129,11 @@ pub enum CoverageKind { /// Marks the point in MIR control flow represented by a evaluated condition. /// /// This is eventually lowered to `llvm.instrprof.mcdc.condbitmap.update` in LLVM IR. - /// - /// If this statement does not survive MIR optimizations, the condition would never be - /// taken as evaluated. CondBitmapUpdate { id: ConditionId, value: bool, decision_depth: u16 }, /// Marks the point in MIR control flow represented by a evaluated decision. /// /// This is eventually lowered to `llvm.instrprof.mcdc.tvbitmap.update` in LLVM IR. - /// - /// If this statement does not survive MIR optimizations, the decision would never be - /// taken as evaluated. TestVectorBitmapUpdate { bitmap_idx: u32, decision_depth: u16 }, }