coverage: Allow each coverage statement to have multiple code regions
The original implementation of coverage instrumentation was built around the assumption that a coverage counter/expression would be associated with *up to one* code region. When it was discovered that *multiple* regions would sometimes need to share a counter, a workaround was found: for the remaining regions, the instrumentor would create a fresh expression that adds zero to the existing counter/expression.
That got the job done, but resulted in some awkward code, and produces unnecessarily complicated coverage maps in the final binary.
---
This PR removes that tension by changing `StatementKind::Coverage`'s code region field from `Option<CodeRegion>` to `Vec<CodeRegion>`.
The changes on the codegen side are fairly straightforward. As long as each `CoverageKind::Counter` only injects one `llvm.instrprof.increment`, the rest of coverage codegen is happy to handle multiple regions mapped to the same counter/expression, with only minor option-to-vec adjustments.
On the instrumentor/mir-transform side, we can get rid of the code that creates extra (x + 0) expressions. Instead we gather all of the code regions associated with a single BCB, and inject them all into one coverage statement.
---
There are several patches here but they can be divided in to three phases:
- Preparatory work
- Actually switching over to multiple regions per coverage statement
- Cleaning up
So viewing the patches individually may be easier.
When these methods were originally written, I wasn't aware that
`newtype_index!` already supports addition with ordinary numbers, without
needing to unwrap and re-wrap.
If a BCB has more than one code region, those extra regions can now all be
stored in the same coverage statement, instead of being stored in additional
statements.
The concrete type `CoverageSpan` is no longer used outside of the `spans`
module.
This is a separate patch to avoid noise in the preceding patch that actually
encapsulates coverage spans.
By encapsulating the coverage spans in a struct, we can change the internal
representation without disturbing existing call sites. This will be useful for
grouping coverage spans by BCB.
This patch includes some changes that were originally in #115912, which avoid
the need for a particular test to deal with coverage spans at all.
(Comments/logs referring to `CoverageSpan` are updated in a subsequent patch.)
Reveal opaque types before drop elaboration
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113594
r? `@cjgillot`
cc `@JakobDegen`
This pass was introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110714
I moved it before drop elaboration (which only cares about the hidden types of things, not the opaque TAIT or RPIT type) and set it to run unconditionally (instead of depending on the optimization level and whether the inliner is active)
Implement a global value numbering MIR optimization
The aim of this pass is to avoid repeated computations by reusing past assignments. It is based on an analysis of SSA locals, in order to perform a restricted form of common subexpression elimination.
By opportunity, this pass allows for some simplifications by combining assignments. For instance, this pass could be able to see through projections of aggregates to directly reuse the aggregate field (not in this PR).
We handle references by assigning a different "provenance" index to each `Ref`/`AddressOf` rvalue. This ensure that we do not spuriously merge borrows that should not be merged. Meanwhile, we consider all the derefs of an immutable reference to a freeze type to give the same value:
```rust
_a = *_b // _b is &Freeze
_c = *_b // replaced by _c = _a
```
Skip MIR pass `UnreachablePropagation` when coverage is enabled
When coverage instrumentation and MIR opts are both enabled, coverage relies on two assumptions:
- MIR opts that would delete `StatementKind::Coverage` statements instead move them into bb0 and change them to `CoverageKind::Unreachable`.
- MIR opts won't delete all `CoverageKind::Counter` statements from an instrumented function.
Most MIR opts naturally satisfy the second assumption, because they won't remove coverage statements from bb0, but `UnreachablePropagation` can do so if it finds that bb0 is unreachable. If this happens, LLVM thinks the function isn't instrumented, and it vanishes from coverage reports.
A proper solution won't be possible until after per-function coverage info lands in #116046, but for now we can avoid the problem by turning off this particular pass when coverage instrumentation is enabled.
---
cc `@cjgillot` since I found this while investigating coverage problems encountered by #113970
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage +A-mir-opt
subst -> instantiate
continues #110793, there are still quite a few uses of `subst` and `substitute`, but changing them all in the same PR was a bit too much, so I've stopped here for now.
When coverage instrumentation and MIR opts are both enabled, coverage relies on
two assumptions:
- MIR opts that would delete `StatementKind::Coverage` statements instead move
them into bb0 and change them to `CoverageKind::Unreachable`.
- MIR opts won't delete all `CoverageKind::Counter` statements from an
instrumented function.
Most MIR opts naturally satisfy the second assumption, because they won't
remove coverage statements from bb0, but `UnreachablePropagation` can do so if
it finds that bb0 is unreachable. If this happens, LLVM thinks the function
isn't instrumented, and it vanishes from coverage reports.
A proper solution won't be possible until after per-function coverage info
lands in #116046, but for now we can avoid the problem by turning off this
particular pass when coverage instrumentation is enabled.
interpret: more consistently use ImmTy in operators and casts
The diff in src/tools/miri/src/shims/x86/sse2.rs should hopefully suffice to explain why this is nicer. :)
rename mir::Constant -> mir::ConstOperand, mir::ConstKind -> mir::Const
Also, be more consistent with the `to/eval_bits` methods... we had some that take a type and some that take a size, and then sometimes the one that takes a type is called `bits_for_ty`.
Turns out that `ty::Const`/`mir::ConstKind` carry their type with them, so we don't need to even pass the type to those `eval_bits` functions at all.
However this is not properly consistent yet: in `ty` we have most of the methods on `ty::Const`, but in `mir` we have them on `mir::ConstKind`. And indeed those two types are the ones that correspond to each other. So `mir::ConstantKind` should actually be renamed to `mir::Const`. But what to do with `mir::Constant`? It carries around a span, that's really more like a constant operand that appears as a MIR operand... it's more suited for `syntax.rs` than `consts.rs`, but the bigger question is, which name should it get if we want to align the `mir` and `ty` types? `ConstOperand`? `ConstOp`? `Literal`? It's not a literal but it has a field called `literal` so it would at least be consistently wrong-ish...
``@oli-obk`` any ideas?
coverage: Fix an unstable-sort inconsistency in coverage spans
This code was calling `sort_unstable_by`, but failed to impose a total order on the initial spans. That resulted in unpredictable handling of closure spans, producing inconsistencies in the coverage maps and in user-visible coverage reports.
This PR fixes the problem by always sorting closure spans before otherwise-identical non-closure spans, and also switches to a stable sort in case the ordering is still not total.
---
In addition to the fix itself, this PR also contains a cleanup to the comparison function that I was working on when I discovered the bug.
