Always point at index span on index obligation failure
Use more targetted span for index obligation failures by rewriting the obligation cause span.
CC #66023
Remove incorrect transformation from RemoveZsts
Partial removal of storage statements for a local is incorrect, so a decision to optimize cannot be make independently for each statement.
Avoid the issue by performing the transformation completely or not at all.
Remove `-Zperf-stats`.
The included measurements have varied over the years. At one point there were quite a few more, but #49558 deleted a lot that were no longer used. Today there's just four, and it's a motley collection that doesn't seem particularly valuable.
I think it has been well and truly subsumed by self-profiling, which collects way more data.
r? `@wesleywiser`
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #114224 (rustc_llvm: Link to libkstat on Solaris/SPARC)
- #117695 (Reorder checks to make sure potential missing expect on Option/Result…)
- #117870 (`fn args_ref_X` to `fn args_X`)
- #117879 (tests: update check for inferred nneg on zext)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
tests: update check for inferred nneg on zext
This was broken by upstream
llvm/llvm-project@dc6d077396. It's easy enough to use a regex match to support both, so we do that.
r? `@nikic`
`@rustbot` label: +llvm-main
rustc_llvm: Link to libkstat on Solaris/SPARC
getHostCPUName calls into libkstat but as of
LLVM 16.0.6 libLLVMTargetParser is not explicitly
linked against libkstat causing builds to fail
due to undefined symbols.
See also: llvm/llvm-project#64186
Compute layout with spans for better cycle errors in coroutines
Split out from #117703, this PR at least gives us a nicer span to point at when we hit a cycle error in coroutine layout cycles.
Remove `-Zkeep-hygiene-data`.
It was added way back in #28585 under the name `-Zkeep-mtwt-tables`. The justification was:
> This is so that the resolution results can be used after analysis,
> potentially for tool support.
There are no uses of significance in the code base, and various Google searches for both option names (and variants) found nothing of interest. I think this can safely be removed.
r? `@davidtwco`
This was broken by upstream
llvm/llvm-project@dc6d077396. It's easy
enough to use a regex match to support both, so we do that.
r? @nikic
@rustbot label: +llvm-main
`ReLateBound` -> `ReBound`
first step of https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/95
already fairly large xx
there's some future work here I intentionally did not contribute as part of this PR, from my notes:
- `DescriptionCtx` to `DescriptionCtxt`
- what is `CheckRegions::Bound`?
- `collect_late_bound_regions` et al
- `erase_late_bound_regions` -> `instantiate_bound_regions_with_erased`?
- `EraseEarlyRegions` should be removed, feels duplicate
r? `@BoxyUwU`
rustdoc: use `.rustdoc` class instead of `body`
This didn't show up in our local tests, because the problem is actually caused by docs.rs rewritten HTML (which relocates the classes that this code looked for from the body tag to a child div).
Fixes#117290
r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
Both problems are regressions introduced by #115948
This didn't show up in our local tests, because the problem is actually
caused by docs.rs rewritten HTML (which relocates the classes that this
code looked for from the body tag to a child div).
Fixes#117290
coverage: Avoid creating malformed macro name spans
This is a workaround for #117788. It detects a particular scenario where we would create malformed coverage spans that might cause `llvm-cov` to immediately exit with an error, preventing the user from processing coverage reports.
The patch has been kept as simple as possible so that it's trivial to backport to beta (or stable) if desired.
---
The `maybe_push_macro_name_span` method is trying to detect macro invocations, so that it can split a span into two parts just after the `!` of the invocation.
Under some circumstances (probably involving nested macros), it gets confused and produces a span that is larger than the original span, and possibly extends outside its enclosing function and even into an adjacent file.
In extreme cases, that can result in malformed coverage mappings that cause `llvm-cov` to fail. For now, we at least want to detect these egregious cases and avoid them, so that coverage reports can still be produced.
Without the workaround applied, this test will produce malformed mappings that
cause `llvm-cov` to fail.
(And if it does emit well-formed mappings, they should be obviously incorrect.)
