-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
deps: v8, cherry-pick 9365d09, aac2f8c, 47d34a3 #25429
Conversation
CC: @schuay |
You also need to update 'v8_embedder_string': '-node.10', in common.gypi. Which we bump with each commit backported. I think but I'm not sure that it should actually be bumped twice in the PR once for each of the commits backported but @hashseed can confirm as he does this regularly. |
62941f8
to
56aaecc
Compare
56aaecc
to
d4577e4
Compare
👋 flagged a couple folks who I saw reviewing v8 backports recently (CC: @BridgeAR, @TimothyGu). This is an attempt to back port some of the work that @hashseed, @schuay, and myself have done in v8 related to test coverage -- the patch didn't apply perfectly, so would love an extra set of eyes to make sure I made reasonable decisions when back porting. |
|
||
void SourceRangeAstVisitor::MaybeRemoveLastContinuationRange( | ||
ZonePtrList<Statement>* statements) { | ||
if (statements == nullptr || statements->is_empty()) return; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
statements
is sometimes a nullptr
, which was leading to a segfault. This does not seem to be possible in the mainline v8; my guess is that a patch that has not been back-ported eliminated the possibility of expr->body()
returning a nullptr
. It felt like a reasonable stop gap (until we land a fully updated v8) to add the check statements == nullptr
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is the relevant change.
d4577e4
to
28ccf19
Compare
a6d6939
to
8b58ffe
Compare
@hashseed would be great to get your review on this since you made some of the original changes. |
New coverage build with this PR integrated: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/All/job/node-test-commit-linux-coverage-new/3/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm!
@mhdawson seems like your test build did not start properly. Could you please have another look at it? |
8b58ffe
to
7657903
Compare
Should this be backported to |
@addaleax I think this would be worth back-porting; I honestly wonder if we could get away with landing it on |
@bcoe In that case you or somebody from the V8 team would need to do the work to backport these patches manually (they have merge conflicts on v11.x). |
@addaleax okay, I'll make an effort to do so after my block of meetings frees up later this afternoon; will update this conversation here if it looks like the back-port is possible. |
Original commit message 9365d09: [coverage] Rework continuation counter handling This changes a few bits about how continuation counters are handled. It introduces a new mechanism that allows removal of a continuation range after it has been created. If coverage is enabled, we run a first post-processing pass on the AST immediately after parsing, which removes problematic continuation ranges in two situations: 1. nested continuation counters - only the outermost stays alive. 2. trailing continuation counters within a block-like structure are removed if the containing structure itself has a continuation. R=bmeurer@chromium.org, jgruber@chromium.org, yangguo@chromium.org Bug: v8:8381, v8:8539 Change-Id: I6bcaea5060d8c481d7bae099f6db9f993cc30ee3 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/1339119 Reviewed-by: Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Leszek Swirski <leszeks@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Georg Neis <neis@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Jakob Gruber <jgruber@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#58443} Refs: v8/v8@9365d09 Original commit message aac2f8c: [coverage] Filter out singleton ranges that alias full ranges Block coverage is based on a system of ranges that can either have both a start and end position, or only a start position (so-called singleton ranges). When formatting coverage information, singletons are expanded until the end of the immediate full parent range. E.g. in: {0, 10} // Full range. {5, -1} // Singleton range. the singleton range is expanded to {5, 10}. Singletons are produced mostly for continuation counters that track whether we execute past a specific language construct. Unfortunately, continuation counters can turn up in spots that confuse our post-processing. For example: if (true) { ... block1 ... } else { ... block2 ... } If block1 produces a continuation counter, it could end up with the same start position as the else-branch counter. Since we merge identical blocks, the else-branch could incorrectly end up with an execution count of one. We need to avoid merging such cases. A full range should always take precedence over a singleton range; a singleton range should never expand to completely fill a full range. An additional post-processing pass ensures this. Bug: v8:8237 Change-Id: Idb3ec7b2feddc0585313810b9c8be1e9f4ec64bf Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/1273095 Reviewed-by: Georg Neis <neis@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Jakob Gruber <jgruber@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{nodejs#56531} Refs: v8/v8@aac2f8c deps: V8: backport 47d34a3 Original commit message: Revert "[coverage] change block range to avoid ambiguity." This reverts commit 471fef0469d04d7c487f3a08e81f3d77566a2f50. Reason for revert: A more general fix incoming at https://crrev.com/c/1273095. Original change's description: > [coverage] change block range to avoid ambiguity. > > By moving the block range end to left of closing bracket, > we can avoid ambiguity where an open-ended singleton range > could be both interpreted as inside the parent range, or > next to it. > > R=<U+200B>verwaest@chromium.org > > Bug: v8:8237 > Change-Id: Ibc9412b31efe900b6d8bff0d8fa8c52ddfbf460a > Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/1254127 > Reviewed-by: Georg Neis <neis@chromium.org> > Commit-Queue: Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org> > Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{nodejs#56347} TBR=yangguo@chromium.org,neis@chromium.org,verwaest@chromium.org # Not skipping CQ checks because original CL landed > 1 day ago. Bug: v8:8237 Change-Id: I39310cf3c2f06a0d98ff314740aaeefbfffc0834 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/1273096 Reviewed-by: Jakob Gruber <jgruber@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Toon Verwaest <verwaest@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Jakob Gruber <jgruber@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{nodejs#56513} Refs: v8/v8@47d34a3 PR-URL: nodejs#25429 Backport-PR-URL: nodejs#25728 Reviewed-By: Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>
Original commit message 9365d09: [coverage] Rework continuation counter handling This changes a few bits about how continuation counters are handled. It introduces a new mechanism that allows removal of a continuation range after it has been created. If coverage is enabled, we run a first post-processing pass on the AST immediately after parsing, which removes problematic continuation ranges in two situations: 1. nested continuation counters - only the outermost stays alive. 2. trailing continuation counters within a block-like structure are removed if the containing structure itself has a continuation. R=bmeurer@chromium.org, jgruber@chromium.org, yangguo@chromium.org Bug: v8:8381, v8:8539 Change-Id: I6bcaea5060d8c481d7bae099f6db9f993cc30ee3 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/1339119 Reviewed-by: Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Leszek Swirski <leszeks@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Georg Neis <neis@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Jakob Gruber <jgruber@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#58443} Refs: v8/v8@9365d09 Original commit message aac2f8c: [coverage] Filter out singleton ranges that alias full ranges Block coverage is based on a system of ranges that can either have both a start and end position, or only a start position (so-called singleton ranges). When formatting coverage information, singletons are expanded until the end of the immediate full parent range. E.g. in: {0, 10} // Full range. {5, -1} // Singleton range. the singleton range is expanded to {5, 10}. Singletons are produced mostly for continuation counters that track whether we execute past a specific language construct. Unfortunately, continuation counters can turn up in spots that confuse our post-processing. For example: if (true) { ... block1 ... } else { ... block2 ... } If block1 produces a continuation counter, it could end up with the same start position as the else-branch counter. Since we merge identical blocks, the else-branch could incorrectly end up with an execution count of one. We need to avoid merging such cases. A full range should always take precedence over a singleton range; a singleton range should never expand to completely fill a full range. An additional post-processing pass ensures this. Bug: v8:8237 Change-Id: Idb3ec7b2feddc0585313810b9c8be1e9f4ec64bf Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/1273095 Reviewed-by: Georg Neis <neis@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Jakob Gruber <jgruber@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#56531} Refs: v8/v8@aac2f8c deps: V8: backport 47d34a3 Original commit message: Revert "[coverage] change block range to avoid ambiguity." This reverts commit 471fef0469d04d7c487f3a08e81f3d77566a2f50. Reason for revert: A more general fix incoming at https://crrev.com/c/1273095. Original change's description: > [coverage] change block range to avoid ambiguity. > > By moving the block range end to left of closing bracket, > we can avoid ambiguity where an open-ended singleton range > could be both interpreted as inside the parent range, or > next to it. > > R=<U+200B>verwaest@chromium.org > > Bug: v8:8237 > Change-Id: Ibc9412b31efe900b6d8bff0d8fa8c52ddfbf460a > Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/1254127 > Reviewed-by: Georg Neis <neis@chromium.org> > Commit-Queue: Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org> > Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#56347} TBR=yangguo@chromium.org,neis@chromium.org,verwaest@chromium.org # Not skipping CQ checks because original CL landed > 1 day ago. Bug: v8:8237 Change-Id: I39310cf3c2f06a0d98ff314740aaeefbfffc0834 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/1273096 Reviewed-by: Jakob Gruber <jgruber@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Toon Verwaest <verwaest@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Jakob Gruber <jgruber@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#56513} Refs: v8/v8@47d34a3 PR-URL: #25429 Backport-PR-URL: #25728 Reviewed-By: Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
merge patches related to test coverage:
v8/v8@aac2f8c
v8/v8@9365d09
v8/v8@47d34a3
this should correct some of the oddities seen by @mhdawson in #25157
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passes