| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have to make sure we set it everywhere that we set `subcandidates`.
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
deref patterns: bare-bones feature gate and typechecking
I am restarting the deref patterns experimentation. This introduces a feature gate under the lang-team [experimental feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/blob/master/src/how_to/experiment.md) process, with [````@cramertj```` as lang-team liaison](https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/88) (it's been a while though, you still ok with this ````@cramertj?).```` Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87121.
This is the barest-bones implementation I could think of:
- explicit syntax, reusing `box <pat>` because that saves me a ton of work;
- use `Deref` as a marker trait (instead of a yet-to-design `DerefPure`);
- no support for mutable patterns with `DerefMut` for now;
- MIR lowering will come in the next PR. It's the trickiest part.
My goal is to let us figure out the MIR lowering part, which might take some work. And hopefully get something working for std types soon.
This is in large part salvaged from ````@fee1-dead's```` https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119467.
r? ````@compiler-errors````
|
|
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
|
|
Co-authored-by: Deadbeef <ent3rm4n@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
various clippy fixes
We need to keep the order of the given clippy lint rules before passing them.
Since clap doesn't offer any useful interface for this purpose out of the box,
we have to handle it manually.
Additionally, this PR makes `-D` rules work as expected. Previously, lint rules were limited to `-W`. By enabling `-D`, clippy began to complain numerous lines in the tree, all of which have been resolved in this PR as well.
Fixes #121481
cc `@matthiaskrgr`
|
|
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
|
|
actual overrides in codegen
|
|
|
|
r=compiler-errors,petrochenkov
`f16` and `f128` step 3: compiler support & feature gate
Continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121841, another portion of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114607
This PR exposes the new types to the world and adds a feature gate. Marking this as a draft because I need some feedback on where I did the feature gate check. It also does not yet catch type via suffixed literals (so the feature gate test will fail, probably some others too because I haven't belssed).
If there is a better place to check all types after resolution, I can do that. If not, I figure maybe I can add a second gate location in AST when it checks numeric suffixes.
Unfortunately I still don't think there is much testing to be done for correctness (codegen tests or parsed value checks) until we have basic library support. I think that will be the next step.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116909
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@Nilstrieb`
`@rustbot` label +F-f16_and_f128
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
match lowering: don't collect test alternatives ahead of time
I'm very happy with this one. Before this, when sorting candidates into the possible test branches, we manually computed `usize` indices to determine in which branch each candidate goes. To make this work we had a first pass that collected the possible alternatives we'd have to deal with, and a second pass that actually sorts the candidates.
In this PR, I replace `usize` indices with a dedicated enum. This makes `sort_candidates` easier to follow, and we don't need the first pass anymore.
r? ``@matthewjasper``
|
|
|
|
Clarity improvements to `DropTree`
These changes are based on some points of confusion I had when initially trying to understand this code.
The only “functional” change is an additional assertion in `<ExitScopes as DropTreeBuilder>::link_entry_point`, checking that the dummy terminator is `TerminatorKind::UnwindResume` as expected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add asm goto support to `asm!`
Tracking issue: #119364
This PR implements asm-goto support, using the syntax described in "future possibilities" section of [RFC2873](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2873-inline-asm.html#asm-goto).
Currently I have only implemented the `label` part, not the `fallthrough` part (i.e. fallthrough is implicit). This doesn't reduce the expressive though, since you can use label-break to get arbitrary control flow or simply set a value and rely on jump threading optimisation to get the desired control flow. I can add that later if deemed necessary.
r? ``@Amanieu``
cc ``@ojeda``
|
|
This method would previously take a target scope, and then verify that it
was equal to the scope on top of the if-then scope stack.
In practice, this means that callers have to go out of their way to pass around
redundant scope information that's already on the if-then stack.
So it's easier to just retrieve the correct scope directly from the if-then
stack, and simplify the other code that was passing it around.
|
|
This allows us to use real field names instead of tuple element numbers.
Renaming `previous_drops` to `existing_drops_map` clarifies that "previous" was
unrelated to drop order.
|
|
This clarifies that we're adding an "entry point", not just adding an "entry"
of some kind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This makes it easier to see that the call to `in_scope` returns both the then
block and the else block. The rather confusing `unpack!` step is confined to
its own separate line.
(This patch reindents several lines, so using "ignore whitespace" is
recommended in order to focus on the actual changes.)
|
|
Most of this method's arguments are usually or always forwarded as-is to
recursive invocations.
Wrapping them in a dedicated struct allows us to document each struct field,
and lets us use struct-update syntax to indicate which arguments are being
modified when making a recursive call.
|
|
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #120761 (Add initial support for DataFlowSanitizer)
- #121622 (Preserve same vtable pointer when cloning raw waker, to fix Waker::will_wake)
- #121716 (match lowering: Lower bindings in a predictable order)
- #121731 (Now that inlining, mir validation and const eval all use reveal-all, we won't be constraining hidden types here anymore)
- #121841 (`f16` and `f128` step 2: intrinsics)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
match lowering: Lower bindings in a predictable order
After the recent refactorings, we can now lower bindings in a truly predictable order. The order in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120214 was an improvement but not very clear. With this PR, we lower bindings from left to right, with the special case that `x @ pat` is traversed as `pat @ x` (i.e. `x` is lowered after any bindings in `pat`).
This description only applies in the absence of or-patterns. Or-patterns make everything complicated, because the binding place depends on the subpattern. Until I have a better idea I leave them to be handled in whatever weird order arises from today's code.
r? `@matthewjasper`
|
|
Before, the SwitchInt cases were computed in two passes: if the first
pass accepted e.g. 0..=5 and then 1, the second pass would not accept
0..=5 anymore because 1 would be listed in the SwitchInt options.
Now there's a single pass, so if we sort 0..=5 we must take care to not
sort a subsequent 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ordinary lowering of `thir::ExprKind::Let` is unreachable
After desugaring, `let` expressions should only appear inside `if` expressions or `match` guards, possibly nested within a let-chain. In both cases they are specifically handled by the lowerings of those expressions, so this case is currently unreachable.
---
Context: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/182449-t-compiler.2Fhelp/topic/Lowering.20of.20.60thir.3A.3AExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.20is.20unreachable
My conclusions are partly based on the observation that stubbing out this match arm doesn't cause any test failures. So either this really is unreachable, or it can be reached in some obscure circumstances that our test suite doesn't cover.
If we end up needing this code (or something like it) for an implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3573, it should be easy enough to pull it back out of version control history.
I looked into having the `if`/`match` lowerings call back into `expr_into_dest`, but from what I can tell that won't work well, because there are extra scoping considerations that require some awareness of the enclosing if/match.
r? ```@Nadrieril```
|
|
After desugaring, `let` expressions should only appear inside `if` expressions
or `match` guards, possibly nested within a let-chain. In both cases they are
specifically handled by the lowerings of those expressions, so this case is
currently unreachable.
|
|
match lowering: pre-simplify or-patterns too
This is the final part of my work to simplify match pairs early: now we do it for or-patterns too. This makes it possible to collect fake borrows separately from the main match lowering algorithm. That'll enable more simplifications of or-pattern handling.
Note: I was tempted to have `Candidate` contain a `FlatPat`, but there are so many places that use `candidate.match_pairs` etc directly that I chose not to.
r? `@matthewjasper`
|
|
match lowering: Separate the `bool` case from other integers in `TestKind`
`TestKind::SwitchInt` had a special case for `bool` essentially everywhere it's used, so I made `TestKind::If` to handle the bool case on its own.
r? `@matthewjasper`
|
|
match lowering: Remove hacky branch in sort_candidate
Reusing `self.test()` there wasn't actually pulling a lot of weight. In particular the `TestKind::Len` cases were all already correctly handled.
r? `@matthewjasper`
|
|
Make the success arms of `if lhs || rhs` meet up in a separate block
Extracted from #118305, where this is necessary to avoid introducing a bug when injecting marker statements into the then/else arms.
---
In the previous code (#111752), the success block of `lhs` would jump directly to the success block of `rhs`. However, `rhs_success_block` could already contain statements that are specific to the RHS, and the direct goto causes them to be executed in the LHS success path as well.
This patch therefore creates a fresh block that the LHS and RHS success blocks can both jump to.
---
I think the reason we currently get away with this is that `rhs_success_block` usually doesn't contain anything other than StorageDead statements for locals used by the RHS, and those statements don't seem to cause problems in the LHS success path (which never makes those locals live).
But if we start adding meaningful statements for branch coverage (or MC/DC coverage), it's important to keep the LHS and RHS blocks separate.
|
|
Add stubs in IR and ABI for `f16` and `f128`
This is the very first step toward the changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114607 and the [`f16` and `f128` RFC](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3453-f16-and-f128.html). It adds the types to `rustc_type_ir::FloatTy` and `rustc_abi::Primitive`, and just propagates those out as `unimplemented!` stubs where necessary.
These types do not parse yet so there is no feature gate, and it should be okay to use `unimplemented!`.
The next steps will probably be AST support with parsing and the feature gate.
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@Nilstrieb` suggested breaking the PR up in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120645#issuecomment-1925900572
|
|
In the previous code, the success block of `lhs` would jump directly to the
success block of `rhs`. However, `rhs_success_block` could already contain
statements that are specific to the RHS, and the direct goto causes them to be
executed in the LHS success path as well.
This patch therefore creates a fresh block that the LHS and RHS success blocks
can both jump to.
|
|
Make changes necessary to support these types in the compiler.
|
