This change also modifies the dep graph infrastructure to keep track of the number of active tasks, so that even if we are not building the full dep-graph, we still get assertions when there is no active task and one does something that would add a read/write edge. This is particularly helpful since, if the assertions are *not* active, you wind up with the error happening in the message processing thread, which is too late to know the correct backtrace.
~~Before landing, I need to do some performance measurements. Those are underway.~~
See measurements below. No real effect on time.
r? @michaelwoerister
Have the `ObligationForest` keep some per-tree state (or type `T`) and have it give a mutable reference for use when processing obligations. In this case, it will be a hashmap. This obviously affects the work that @soltanmm has been doing on snapshotting. I partly want to toss this out there for discussion.
Fixes#31157. (The test in question goes to approx. 30s instead of 5 minutes for me.)
cc #30977.
cc @aturon @arielb1 @soltanmm
r? @aturon who reviewed original `ObligationForest`
If a new cleanup is added to a cleanup scope, the cached exits for that
scope are cleared, so all previous cleanups have to be translated
again. In the worst case this means that we get N distinct landing pads
where the last one has N cleanups, then N-1 and so on.
As new cleanups are to be executed before older ones, we can instead
cache the number of already translated cleanups in addition to the
block that contains them, and then only translate new ones, if any and
then jump to the cached ones, getting away with linear growth instead.
For the crate in #31381 this reduces the compile time for an optimized
build from >20 minutes (I cancelled the build at that point) to about 11
seconds. Testing a few crates that come with rustc show compile time
improvements somewhere between 1 and 8%. The "big" winner being
rustc_platform_intrinsics which features code similar to that in #31381.
Fixes#31381
Without this patch, `compiler-rt` fails to build when the `CFLAGS` environment variable contains a `-Werror=*` flag (for example `-Werror=format-security`).
The build system was removing only the `-Werror` part from the flag, thus passing an unrecognized `=*` (for example `=format-security`) argument to gcc.
The first commit improves detection of unused imports -- it should have been part of #30325. Right now, the unused import in the changed test would not be reported.
The rest of the commits are miscellaneous, independent clean-ups in resolve that I didn't think warranted individual PRs.
r? @nrc
These accessors are used to get at the last modification, last access, and
creation time of the underlying file. Currently not all platforms provide the
creation time, so that currently returns `Option`.
These accessors are used to get at the last modification, last access, and
creation time of the underlying file. Currently not all platforms provide the
creation time, so that currently returns `Option`.
- use `symlink_file` and `symlink_dir` instead of the old `soft_link`
- create a junction instead of a directory symlink for testing recursive_rmdir (as it causes the
same troubles, but can be created by users without `SeCreateSymbolicLinkPrivilege`)
- `remove_dir_all` was unable to remove directory symlinks and junctions
- only run tests that create symlinks if we have the right permissions.
- rename `Path2` to `Path`
- remove the global `#[allow(deprecated)]` and outdated comments
- After factoring out `create_junction()` from the test `directory_junctions_are_directories` and
removing needlessly complex code, what I was left with was:
```
#[test]
#[cfg(windows)]
fn directory_junctions_are_directories() {
use sys::fs::create_junction;
let tmpdir = tmpdir();
let foo = tmpdir.join("foo");
let bar = tmpdir.join("bar");
fs::create_dir(&foo).unwrap();
check!(create_junction(&foo, &bar));
assert!(bar.metadata().unwrap().is_dir());
}
```
It test whether a junction is a directory instead of a reparse point. But it actually test the
target of the junction (which is a directory if it exists) instead of the junction itself, which
should always be a symlink. So this test is invalid, and I expect it only exists because the
author was suprised by it. So I removed it.
Some things that do not yet work right:
- relative symlinks do not accept forward slashes
- the conversion of paths for `create_junction` is hacky
- `remove_dir_all` now messes with the internal data of `FileAttr` to be able to remove symlinks.
We should add some method like `is_symlink_dir()` to it, so code outside the standard library
can see the difference between file and directory symlinks too.
I have it set as stable right now under the rationale that it's extending an existing, stable API to another type in the "obvious" way.
r? @alexcrichton
cc @reem
After the truly incredible and embarrassing mess I managed to make in my last pull request, this should be a bit less messy.
Fixes#31267 - with this change, the code mentioned in the issue compiles.
Found and fixed another issue as well - constants of zero-size types, when used in ExprRepeats inside associated constants, were causing the compiler to crash at the same place as #31267. An example of this:
```
struct Bar;
const BAZ: Bar = Bar;
struct Foo([Bar; 1]);
struct Biz;
impl Biz {
const BAZ: Foo = Foo([BAZ; 1]);
}
fn main() {
let foo = Biz::BAZ;
println!("{:?}", foo);
}
```
However, I'm fairly certain that my fix for this is not as elegant as it could be. The problem seems to occur only with an associated constant of a tuple struct containing a fixed size array which is initialized using a repeat expression, and when the element to be repeated provided to the repeat expression is another constant which is of a zero-sized type. The fix works by looking for constants and associated constants which are zero-width and consequently contain no data, but for which rustc is still attempting to emit an LLVM value; it simply stops rustc from attempting to emit anything. By my logic, this should work fine since the only values that are emitted in this case (according to the comments) are for closures with side effects, and constants will never have side effects, so it's fine to simply get rid of them. It fixes the error and things compile fine with it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it could be done in a far better manner.
r? @nikomatsakis
Rust currently emits atomic loads and stores with the LLVM `volatile` qualifier. This is unnecessary and prevents LLVM from performing optimization on these atomic operations.
