| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
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.
Fixes rust-lang/miri#3400
r? oli-obk
|
|
|
|
simplify_branches: add comment
I am not quite sure why this simplification is done here and not in InstSimplify but :shrug:
r? `@cjgillot`
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
r=cjgillot
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
|
|
library
|
|
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.
|
|
Replace visibility test with reachability test in dead code detection
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119545
Also included is a fix for an error now flagged by the lint
|
|
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`
|
|
This query allows for sharing code between `rustc_const_eval` and
`rustc_transmutability`.
Also moves `DummyMachine` to `rustc_const_eval`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Bump to 1.78 bootstrap compiler
https://forge.rust-lang.org/release/process.html#master-bootstrap-update-t-2-day-tuesday
|
|
|
|
|
|
are FnDef/Closure or not
They may become FnDef during monomorphization!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These assertions detect situations where a BCB node 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Move more intrinsics to rustc_intrinsic
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63585
|
|
Use hir::Node helper methods instead of repeating the same impl multiple times
I wanted to do something entirely different and stumbled upon a bunch of cleanups
|
|
actual overrides in codegen
|
|
Detect allocator for box in `must_not_suspend` lint
I don't expect this to happen in practice, but better to check than not.
Fixes #122643
|
|
They match on almost the same patterns, which is fishy.
Also turn `associated_body` into a method and do some cleanups nearby the call sites
|
|
|
|
add_retag: ensure box-to-raw-ptr casts are preserved for Miri
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122233 I added `retag_box_to_raw` not realizing that we can already do `addr_of_mut!(*bx)` to turn a box into a raw pointer without an intermediate reference. We just need to ensure this information is preserved past the ElaborateBoxDerefs pass.
r? ``@oli-obk``
|
|
cases that used `None`
|
|
|
|
simplify_cfg: rename some passes so that they make more sense
I was extremely confused by `SimplifyCfg::ElaborateDrops`, since it runs way later than drop elaboration. It is used e.g. in `mir-opt/retag.rs` even though that pass doesn't care about drop elaboration at all.
"Early opt" is also very confusing since that makes it sounds like it runs early during optimizations, i.e. on runtime MIR, but actually it runs way before that.
So I decided to rename
- early-opt -> post-analysis
- elaborate-drops -> pre-optimizations
I am open to other suggestions.
|
