coverage: Remove useless constants
After #122972 and #123419, these constants don't serve any useful purpose, so get rid of them.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
CFI: Support function pointers for trait methods
Adds support for both CFI and KCFI for function pointers to trait methods by attaching both concrete and abstract types to functions.
KCFI does this through generation of a `ReifyShim` on any function pointer for a method that could go into a vtable, and keeping this separate from `ReifyShim`s that are *intended* for vtable us by setting a `ReifyReason` on them.
CFI does this by setting both the concrete and abstract type on every instance.
This should land after #123024 or a similar PR, as it diverges the implementation of CFI vs KCFI.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Remove MIR unsafe check
Now that THIR unsafeck is enabled by default in stable I think we can remove MIR unsafeck entirely. This PR also removes safety information from MIR.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #122411 ( Provide cabi_realloc on wasm32-wasip2 by default )
- #123349 (Fix capture analysis for by-move closure bodies)
- #123359 (Link against libc++abi and libunwind as well when building LLVM wrappers on AIX)
- #123388 (use a consistent style for links)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Rename `UninhabitedEnumBranching` to `UnreachableEnumBranching`
Per [#120268](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120268#discussion_r1517492060), I rename `UninhabitedEnumBranching` to `UnreachableEnumBranching` .
I solved some nits to add some comments.
I adjusted the workaround restrictions. This should be useful for `a <= b` and `if let Some/Ok(v)`. For enum with few variants, `early-tailduplication` should not cause compile time overhead.
r? RalfJung
Add `Ord::cmp` for primitives as a `BinOp` in MIR
Update: most of this OP was written months ago. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118310#issuecomment-2016940014 below for where we got to recently that made it ready for review.
---
There are dozens of reasonable ways to implement `Ord::cmp` for integers using comparison, bit-ops, and branches. Those differences are irrelevant at the rust level, however, so we can make things better by adding `BinOp::Cmp` at the MIR level:
1. Exactly how to implement it is left up to the backends, so LLVM can use whatever pattern its optimizer best recognizes and cranelift can use whichever pattern codegens the fastest.
2. By not inlining those details for every use of `cmp`, we drastically reduce the amount of MIR generated for `derive`d `PartialOrd`, while also making it more amenable to MIR-level optimizations.
Having extremely careful `if` ordering to μoptimize resource usage on broadwell (#63767) is great, but it really feels to me like libcore is the wrong place to put that logic. Similarly, using subtraction [tricks](https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#CopyIntegerSign) (#105840) is arguably even nicer, but depends on the optimizer understanding it (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/73417) to be practical. Or maybe [bitor is better than add](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/representing-in-ir/67369/2?u=scottmcm)? But maybe only on a future version that [has `or disjoint` support](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-add-or-disjoint-flag/75036?u=scottmcm)? And just because one of those forms happens to be good for LLVM, there's no guarantee that it'd be the same form that GCC or Cranelift would rather see -- especially given their very different optimizers. Not to mention that if LLVM gets a spaceship intrinsic -- [which it should](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Suboptimal.20inlining.20in.20std.20function.20.60binary_search.60/near/404250586) -- we'll need at least a rustc intrinsic to be able to call it.
As for simplifying it in Rust, we now regularly inline `{integer}::partial_cmp`, but it's quite a large amount of IR. The best way to see that is with 8811efa88b (diff-d134c32d028fbe2bf835fef2df9aca9d13332dd82284ff21ee7ebf717bfa4765R113) -- I added a new pre-codegen MIR test for a simple 3-tuple struct, and this PR change it from 36 locals and 26 basic blocks down to 24 locals and 8 basic blocks. Even better, as soon as the construct-`Some`-then-match-it-in-same-BB noise is cleaned up, this'll expose the `Cmp == 0` branches clearly in MIR, so that an InstCombine (#105808) can simplify that to just a `BinOp::Eq` and thus fix some of our generated code perf issues. (Tracking that through today's `if a < b { Less } else if a == b { Equal } else { Greater }` would be *much* harder.)
---
r? `@ghost`
But first I should check that perf is ok with this
~~...and my true nemesis, tidy.~~
KCFI needs to be able to tell which kind of `ReifyShim` it is examining
in order to decide whether to use a concrete type (`FnPtr` case) or an
abstract case (`Vtable` case). You can *almost* tell this from context,
but there is one case where you can't - if a trait has a method which is
*not* `#[track_caller]`, with an impl that *is* `#[track_caller]`, both
the vtable and a function pointer created from that method will be
`ReifyShim(def_id)`.
Currently, the reason is optional to ensure no additional unique
`ReifyShim`s are added without KCFI on. However, the case in which an
extra `ReifyShim` is created is sufficiently rare that this may be worth
revisiting to reduce complexity.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #123176 (Normalize the result of `Fields::ty_with_args`)
- #123186 (copy any file from stage0/lib to stage0-sysroot/lib)
- #123187 (Forward port 1.77.1 release notes)
- #123188 (compiler: fix few unused_peekable and needless_pass_by_ref_mut clippy lints)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
compiler: fix few unused_peekable and needless_pass_by_ref_mut clippy lints
This fixes few instances of `unused_peekable` and `needless_pass_by_ref_mut`. While i expected to fix more warnings, `needless_pass_by_ref_mut` produced too much for one PR, so i stopped here.
Better reviewed commit by commit, as fixes splitted by chunks.
Simplify trim-paths feature by merging all debuginfo options together
This PR simplifies the trim-paths feature by merging all debuginfo options together, as described in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111540#issuecomment-1994010274.
And also do some correctness fixes found during the review.
cc `@weihanglo`
r? `@michaelwoerister`
warning: this argument is a mutable reference, but not used mutably
--> compiler\rustc_mir_transform\src\coroutine.rs:1229:11
|
1229 | body: &mut Body<'tcx>,
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: consider changing to: `&Body<'tcx>`
|
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#needless_pass_by_ref_mut
warning: this argument is a mutable reference, but not used mutably
--> compiler\rustc_mir_transform\src\nrvo.rs:123:11
|
123 | body: &mut mir::Body<'_>,
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: consider changing to: `&mir::Body<'_>`
|
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#needless_pass_by_ref_mut
warning: this argument is a mutable reference, but not used mutably
--> compiler\rustc_mir_transform\src\nrvo.rs:87:34
|
87 | fn local_eligible_for_nrvo(body: &mut mir::Body<'_>) -> Option<Local> {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: consider changing to: `&mir::Body<'_>`
|
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#needless_pass_by_ref_mut
coverage: Re-enable `UnreachablePropagation` for coverage builds
This is a sequence of 3 related changes:
- Clean up the existing code that scans for unused functions
- Detect functions that were instrumented for coverage, but have had all their coverage statements removed by later MIR transforms (e.g. `UnreachablePropagation`)
- Re-enable `UnreachablePropagation` in coverage builds
Because we now detect functions that have lost their coverage statements, and treat them as unused, we don't need to worry about `UnreachablePropagation` removing all of those statements. This is demonstrated by `tests/coverage/unreachable.rs`.
Fixes#116171.
In `ConstructCoroutineInClosureShim`, pass receiver by mut ref, not mut pointer
The receivers were compatible at codegen time, but did not necessarily have the same layouts due to niches, which was caught by miri.
Fixesrust-lang/miri#3400
r? oli-obk
Replace `mir_built` query with a hook and use mir_const everywhere instead
A small perf improvement due to less dep graph handling.
Mostly just a cleanup to get rid of one of our many mir queries
Unbox and unwrap the contents of `StatementKind::Coverage`
The payload of coverage statements was historically a structure with several fields, so it was boxed to avoid bloating `StatementKind`.
Now that the payload is a single relatively-small enum, we can replace `Box<Coverage>` with just `CoverageKind`.
This patch also adds a size assertion for `StatementKind`, to avoid accidentally bloating it in the future.
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
Fix validation on substituted callee bodies in MIR inliner
When inlining a coroutine, we will substitute the MIR body with the args of the call. There is code in the MIR validator that attempts to prevent query cycles, and will use the coroutine body directly when it detects that's the body that's being validated. That means that when inlining a coroutine body that has been substituted, it may no longer be parameterized over the original args of the coroutine, which will lead to substitution ICEs.
Fixes#119064
The payload of coverage statements was historically a structure with several
fields, so it was boxed to avoid bloating `StatementKind`.
Now that the payload is a single relatively-small enum, we can replace
`Box<Coverage>` with just `CoverageKind`.
This patch also adds a size assertion for `StatementKind`, to avoid
accidentally bloating it in the future.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #114009 (compiler: allow transmute of ZST arrays with generics)
- #122195 (Note that the caller chooses a type for type param)
- #122651 (Suggest `_` for missing generic arguments in turbofish)
- #122784 (Add `tag_for_variant` query)
- #122839 (Split out `PredicatePolarity` from `ImplPolarity`)
- #122873 (Merge my contributor emails into one using mailmap)
- #122885 (Adjust better spastorino membership to triagebot's adhoc_groups)
- #122888 (add a couple more tests)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add `tag_for_variant` query
This query allows for sharing code between `rustc_const_eval` and `rustc_transmutability`. It's a precursor to a PR I'm working on to entirely replace the bespoke layout computations in `rustc_transmutability`.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Some of the marker statements used by coverage are added during MIR building
for use by the InstrumentCoverage pass (during analysis), and are not needed
afterwards.
recursively evaluate the constants in everything that is 'mentioned'
This is another attempt at fixing https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/107503. The previous attempt at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112879 seems stuck in figuring out where the [perf regression](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=c55d1ee8d4e3162187214692229a63c2cc5e0f31&end=ec8de1ebe0d698b109beeaaac83e60f4ef8bb7d1&stat=instructions:u) comes from. In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122258 I learned some things, which informed the approach this PR is taking.
Quoting from the new collector docs, which explain the high-level idea:
```rust
//! One important role of collection is to evaluate all constants that are used by all the items
//! which are being collected. Codegen can then rely on only encountering constants that evaluate
//! successfully, and if a constant fails to evaluate, the collector has much better context to be
//! able to show where this constant comes up.
//!
//! However, the exact set of "used" items (collected as described above), and therefore the exact
//! set of used constants, can depend on optimizations. Optimizing away dead code may optimize away
//! a function call that uses a failing constant, so an unoptimized build may fail where an
//! optimized build succeeds. This is undesirable.
//!
//! To fix this, the collector has the concept of "mentioned" items. Some time during the MIR
//! pipeline, before any optimization-level-dependent optimizations, we compute a list of all items
//! that syntactically appear in the code. These are considered "mentioned", and even if they are in
//! dead code and get optimized away (which makes them no longer "used"), they are still
//! "mentioned". For every used item, the collector ensures that all mentioned items, recursively,
//! do not use a failing constant. This is reflected via the [`CollectionMode`], which determines
//! whether we are visiting a used item or merely a mentioned item.
//!
//! The collector and "mentioned items" gathering (which lives in `rustc_mir_transform::mentioned_items`)
//! need to stay in sync in the following sense:
//!
//! - For every item that the collector gather that could eventually lead to build failure (most
//! likely due to containing a constant that fails to evaluate), a corresponding mentioned item
//! must be added. This should use the exact same strategy as the ecollector to make sure they are
//! in sync. However, while the collector works on monomorphized types, mentioned items are
//! collected on generic MIR -- so any time the collector checks for a particular type (such as
//! `ty::FnDef`), we have to just onconditionally add this as a mentioned item.
//! - In `visit_mentioned_item`, we then do with that mentioned item exactly what the collector
//! would have done during regular MIR visiting. Basically you can think of the collector having
//! two stages, a pre-monomorphization stage and a post-monomorphization stage (usually quite
//! literally separated by a call to `self.monomorphize`); the pre-monomorphizationn stage is
//! duplicated in mentioned items gathering and the post-monomorphization stage is duplicated in
//! `visit_mentioned_item`.
//! - Finally, as a performance optimization, the collector should fill `used_mentioned_item` during
//! its MIR traversal with exactly what mentioned item gathering would have added in the same
//! situation. This detects mentioned items that have *not* been optimized away and hence don't
//! need a dedicated traversal.
enum CollectionMode {
/// Collect items that are used, i.e., actually needed for codegen.
///
/// Which items are used can depend on optimization levels, as MIR optimizations can remove
/// uses.
UsedItems,
/// Collect items that are mentioned. The goal of this mode is that it is independent of
/// optimizations: the set of "mentioned" items is computed before optimizations are run.
///
/// The exact contents of this set are *not* a stable guarantee. (For instance, it is currently
/// computed after drop-elaboration. If we ever do some optimizations even in debug builds, we
/// might decide to run them before computing mentioned items.) The key property of this set is
/// that it is optimization-independent.
MentionedItems,
}
```
And the `mentioned_items` MIR body field docs:
```rust
/// Further items that were mentioned in this function and hence *may* become monomorphized,
/// depending on optimizations. We use this to avoid optimization-dependent compile errors: the
/// collector recursively traverses all "mentioned" items and evaluates all their
/// `required_consts`.
///
/// This is *not* soundness-critical and the contents of this list are *not* a stable guarantee.
/// All that's relevant is that this set is optimization-level-independent, and that it includes
/// everything that the collector would consider "used". (For example, we currently compute this
/// set after drop elaboration, so some drop calls that can never be reached are not considered
/// "mentioned".) See the documentation of `CollectionMode` in
/// `compiler/rustc_monomorphize/src/collector.rs` for more context.
pub mentioned_items: Vec<Spanned<MentionedItem<'tcx>>>,
```
Fixes#107503
coverage: Remove incorrect assertions from counter allocation
These assertions detect situations where a BCB node (in the coverage graph) would have both a physical counter and one or more in-edge counters/expressions.
For most BCBs that situation would indicate an implementation bug. However, it's perfectly fine in the case of a BCB having an edge that loops back to itself.
Given the complexity and risk involved in fixing the assertions, and the fact that nothing relies on them actually being true, this patch just removes them instead.
Fixes#122738.
`````@rustbot````` label +A-code-coverage
