Don't skip the inconsistent data layout check for custom LLVMs.
With #118708, all targets will have a simple test that would trigger this
check if LLVM's data layouts do change - so data layouts would be
corrected during the LLVM upgrade. Therefore, with builtin targets, this
check won't trigger with our LLVM because each target will have been
confirmed to work. With non-builtin targets, this check is probably
useful to have because you can change the data layout in your target and
if its wrong then that could lead to bugs.
When using a custom LLVM, the same justification makes sense for
non-builtin targets as with our LLVM, the user can update their target to
match their LLVM and that's probably a good thing to do. However, with
a custom LLVM, the user cannot change the builtin target data layouts if
they don't match - though given that the compiler's data layout is used
for layout computation and a bunch of other things - you could get some
bugs because of the mismatch and probably want to know about that.
`CFG_LLVM_ROOT` was also always set during local development with
`download-ci-llvm` so this bug would never trigger locally.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
LLVM already supports emitting compressed debuginfo. In debuginfo=full
builds, the debug section is often a large amount of data, and it
typically compresses very well (3x is not unreasonable.) We add a new
knob to allow debuginfo to be compressed when the matching LLVM
functionality is present. Like clang, if a known-but-disabled
compression mechanism is requested, we disable compression and emit
uncompressed debuginfo sections.
The API is different enough on older LLVMs we just pretend the support
is missing on LLVM older than 16.
When dlltool fails, show the full command that was executed. In
particular, llvm-dlltool is not very helpful, printing a generic usage
message rather than what actually went wrong, so stdout and stderr
aren't of much use when troubleshooting.
Output LLVM optimization remark kind in `-Cremark` output
Since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90833, the optimization remark kind has not been printed. Therefore it wasn't possible to easily determine from the log (in a programmatic way) which remark kind was produced. I think that the most interesting remarks are the missed ones, which can lead users to some code optimization.
Maybe we could also change the format closer to the "old" one:
```
note: optimization remark for tailcallelim at /checkout/src/libcore/num/mod.rs:1:0: marked this call a tail call candidate
```
I wanted to programatically parse the remarks so that they could work e.g. with https://github.com/OfekShilon/optview2. However, now that I think about it, probably the proper solution is to tell rustc to output them to YAML and then use the YAML as input for the opt remark visualization tools. The flag for enabling this does not seem to work though (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/96705#issuecomment-1117632322).
Still I think that it's good to output the remark kind anyway, it's an important piece of information.
r? ```@tmiasko```
This makes it easier to open the messages file while developing on features.
The commit was the result of automatted changes:
for p in compiler/rustc_*; do mv $p/locales/en-US.ftl $p/messages.ftl; rmdir $p/locales; done
for p in compiler/rustc_*; do sed -i "s#\.\./locales/en-US.ftl#../messages.ftl#" $p/src/lib.rs; done
