1 files changed, 0 insertions, 63 deletions
diff --git a/tests/coverage-map/status-quo/overflow.rs b/tests/coverage-map/status-quo/overflow.rs
deleted file mode 100644
index bbb65c1b3..000000000
--- a/tests/coverage-map/status-quo/overflow.rs
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,63 +0,0 @@
-#![allow(unused_assignments)]
-// failure-status: 101
-
-fn might_overflow(to_add: u32) -> u32 {
-    if to_add > 5 {
-        println!("this will probably overflow");
-    }
-    let add_to = u32::MAX - 5;
-    println!("does {} + {} overflow?", add_to, to_add);
-    let result = to_add + add_to;
-    println!("continuing after overflow check");
-    result
-}
-
-fn main() -> Result<(), u8> {
-    let mut countdown = 10;
-    while countdown > 0 {
-        if countdown == 1 {
-            let result = might_overflow(10);
-            println!("Result: {}", result);
-        } else if countdown < 5 {
-            let result = might_overflow(1);
-            println!("Result: {}", result);
-        }
-        countdown -= 1;
-    }
-    Ok(())
-}
-
-// Notes:
-//   1. Compare this program and its coverage results to those of the very similar test `assert.rs`,
-//      and similar tests `panic_unwind.rs`, abort.rs` and `try_error_result.rs`.
-//   2. This test confirms the coverage generated when a program passes or fails a
-//      compiler-generated `TerminatorKind::Assert` (based on an overflow check, in this case).
-//   3. Similar to how the coverage instrumentation handles `TerminatorKind::Call`,
-//      compiler-generated assertion failures are assumed to be a symptom of a program bug, not
-//      expected behavior. To simplify the coverage graphs and keep instrumented programs as
-//      small and fast as possible, `Assert` terminators are assumed to always succeed, and
-//      therefore are considered "non-branching" terminators. So, an `Assert` terminator does not
-//      get its own coverage counter.
-//   4. After an unhandled panic or failed Assert, coverage results may not always be intuitive.
-//      In this test, the final count for the statements after the `if` block in `might_overflow()`
-//      is 4, even though the lines after `to_add + add_to` were executed only 3 times. Depending
-//      on the MIR graph and the structure of the code, this count could have been 3 (which might
-//      have been valid for the overflowed add `+`, but should have been 4 for the lines before
-//      the overflow. The reason for this potential uncertainty is, a `CounterKind` is incremented
-//      via StatementKind::Counter at the end of the block, but (as in the case in this test),
-//      a CounterKind::Expression is always evaluated. In this case, the expression was based on
-//      a `Counter` incremented as part of the evaluation of the `if` expression, which was
-//      executed, and counted, 4 times, before reaching the overflow add.
-
-// If the program did not overflow, the coverage for `might_overflow()` would look like this:
-//
-//     4|       |fn might_overflow(to_add: u32) -> u32 {
-//     5|      4|    if to_add > 5 {
-//     6|      0|        println!("this will probably overflow");
-//     7|      4|    }
-//     8|      4|    let add_to = u32::MAX - 5;
-//     9|      4|    println!("does {} + {} overflow?", add_to, to_add);
-//    10|      4|    let result = to_add + add_to;
-//    11|      4|    println!("continuing after overflow check");
-//    12|      4|    result
-//    13|      4|}