| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
This check is made `needs-unwind`, as the panic=abort case is a strictly
simpler version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only check in a single place if a pass is enabled.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116294
|
|
|
|
Even though expression details are now stored in the info structure, we still
need to inject `ExpressionUsed` statements into MIR, because if one is missing
during codegen then we know that it was optimized out and we can remap all of
its associated code regions to zero.
|
|
Previously, mappings were attached to individual coverage statements in MIR.
That necessitated special handling in MIR optimizations to avoid deleting those
statements, since otherwise codegen would be unable to reassemble the original
list of mappings.
With this change, a function's list of mappings is now attached to its MIR
body, and survives intact even if individual statements are deleted by
optimizations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
This makes it possible for a `StatementKind::Coverage` to hold more than one
code region, but that capability is not yet used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do not create a DerefLen place for `Box<[T]>`.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115789
|
|
|
|
adjust how closure/generator types are printed
I saw `&[closure@$DIR/issue-20862.rs:2:5]` and I thought it is a slice type, because that's usually what `&[_]` is... it took me a while to realize that this is just a confusing printer and actually there's no slice. Let's use something that cannot be mistaken for a regular type.
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
move things out of mir/mod.rs
This moves a bunch of things out of `mir/mod.rs`:
- all const-related stuff to a new file consts.rs
- all statement/place/operand-related stuff to a new file statement.rs
- all pretty-printing related stuff to pretty.rs
`mod.rs` started out with 3100 lines and ends up with 1600. :)
Also there was some pretty-printing stuff in terminator.rs, that also got moved to pretty.rs, and I reordered things in pretty.rs so that it can be grouped by functionality.
Only the commit "use pretty_print_const_value from MIR constant 'extra' printing" has any behavior changes; it resolves the issue of having a fancy and a very crude pretty-printer for `ConstValue`.
r? `@oli-obk`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
