search

CQCL / hugr-llvm

http://crates.io/crates/hugr-llvm
Apache License 2.0
5 stars 2 forks source link

feat: lower CFGs #26

Closed doug-q closed 3 months ago

codecov-commenter commented 3 months ago

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 82.64463% with 42 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 83.32%. Comparing base (b63c619) to head (867702e).

Files Patch % Lines
src/emit/ops/cfg.rs 83.33% 7 Missing and 25 partials :warning:
src/fat.rs 78.57% 3 Missing and 3 partials :warning:
src/emit/ops.rs 75.00% 0 Missing and 2 partials :warning:
src/types.rs 71.42% 1 Missing and 1 partial :warning:
Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #26 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 83.21% 83.32% +0.11% ========================================== Files 11 12 +1 Lines 1513 1739 +226 Branches 1513 1739 +226 ========================================== + Hits 1259 1449 +190 - Misses 168 176 +8 - Partials 86 114 +28 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/CQCL/hugr-llvm/pull/26/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=CQCL) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [rust](https://app.codecov.io/gh/CQCL/hugr-llvm/pull/26/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=CQCL) | `83.32% <82.64%> (+0.11%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=CQCL#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

doug-q commented 3 months ago

Sorry about the miscellaneous changes in fat.rs, I have more comprehensive changes lined up, this was my attempt at doing as little as reasonable.

peter-campora commented 3 months ago

Would be nice if this and #28 get merged soon. I'm slightly blocked on trying to add a lowering for quantum functions using the skeleton code from the draft PR for defining quantum ops until these are merged.