Once upon a time, along with START_BLOCK and END_BLOCK in the castle of important blocks also lived
a RESUME_BLOCK (or was it UNWIND_BLOCK? Either works, I don’t remember anymore). This trinity of
important blocks were required to always exist from the birth to death of the MIR-land they
belonged to.
Some time later, it was discovered that RESUME_BLOCK was just a lazy goon enjoying comfortable life
in the light of fame of the other two. Needless to say, once found out, the RESUME_BLOCK was
quickly slain and disposed of.
Now, the all-seeing eye of ours discovers that END_BLOCK is actually the more evil and better
disguised twin of the slain RESUME_BLOCK. Thus END_BLOCK gets slain and quickly disposed
of. Glory to the START_BLOCK, one and only lord of the important blocks’ castle!
---
Basically, all this does, is removing restriction for END_BLOCK to exist past the first invocation
of RemoveDeadBlocks pass. This way for functions whose CFG does not reach the `END_BLOCK` end up
not containing the block.
As far as the implementation goes, I’m not entirely satisfied with the `BasicBlock::end_block`, I
had hoped to make `new` a `const fn` and then just have a `const END_BLOCK` private to mir::build,
but it turns out that constant functions don’t yet support conditionals nor a way to assert.
Plumb obligations through librustc/infer
Like #32542, but more like #31867.
TODO before merge: make an issue for the propagation of obligations through... uh, everywhere... then replace the `#????`s with the actual issue number.
cc @jroesch
r? @nikomatsakis
rBreak Critical Edges and other MIR work
This PR is built on top of #32080.
This adds the basic depth-first traversals for MIR, preorder, postorder and reverse postorder. The MIR blocks are now translated using reverse postorder. There is also a transform for breaking critical edges, which includes the edges from `invoke`d calls (`Drop` and `Call`), to account for the fact that we can't add code after an `invoke`. It also stops generating the intermediate block (since the transform essentially does it if necessary already).
The kinds of cases this deals with are difficult to produce, so the test is the one I managed to get. However, it seems to bootstrap with `-Z orbit`, which it didn't before my changes.
Also adds a new set of passes to run just before translation that
"prepare" the MIR for codegen. Removal of landing pads, region erasure
and break critical edges are run in this pass.
Also fixes some merge/rebase errors.
This is a fairly standard transform that inserts blocks along critical
edges so code can be inserted along the edge without it affecting other
edges. The main difference is that it considers a Drop or Call
terminator that would require an `invoke` instruction in LLVM a critical
edge. This is because we can't actually insert code after an invoke, so
it ends up looking similar to a critical edge anyway.
The transform is run just before translation right now.
Add Pass manager for MIR
A new PR, since rebasing the original one (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/31448) properly was a pain. Since then there has been several changes most notable of which:
1. Removed the pretty-printing with `#[rustc_mir(graphviz/pretty)]`, mostly because we now have `--unpretty=mir`, IMHO that’s the direction we should expand this functionality into;
2. Reverted the infercx change done for typeck, because typeck can make an infercx for itself by being a `MirMapPass`
r? @nikomatsakis
There's a lot of stuff wrong with the representation of these types:
TyFnDef doesn't actually uniquely identify a function, TyFnPtr is used to
represent method calls, TyFnDef in the sub-expression of a cast isn't
correctly reified, and probably some other stuff I haven't discovered yet.
Splitting them seems like the right first step, though.
The pass removes the unwind branch of each terminator, thus moving the responsibility of handling
the -Z no-landing-pads flag to a small self-contained pass… instead of polluting the translator.
The structure of the old translator as well as MIR assumed that drop glue cannot possibly panic and
translated the drops accordingly. However, in presence of `Drop::drop` this assumption can be
trivially shown to be untrue. As such, the Rust code like the following would never print number 2:
```rust
struct Droppable(u32);
impl Drop for Droppable {
fn drop(&mut self) {
if self.0 == 1 { panic!("Droppable(1)") } else { println!("{}", self.0) }
}
}
fn main() {
let x = Droppable(2);
let y = Droppable(1);
}
```
While the behaviour is allowed according to the language rules (we allow drops to not run), that’s
a very counter-intuitive behaviour. We fix this in MIR by allowing `Drop` to have a target to take
on divergence and connect the drops in such a way so the leftover drops are executed when some drop
unwinds.
Note, that this commit still does not implement the translator part of changes necessary for the
grand scheme of things to fully work, so the actual observed behaviour does not change yet. Coming
soon™.
See #14875.
We used to have CallKind only because there was a requirement to have all successors in a
contiguous memory block. Now that the requirement is gone, remove the CallKind and instead just
have the necessary information inline.
Awesome!
Previously it was returning a value, mostly for the two reasons:
* Cloning Lvalue is very cheap most of the time (i.e. when Lvalue is not a Projection);
* There’s users who want &mut lvalue and there’s users who want &lvalue. Returning a value allows
to make either one easier when pattern matching (i.e. Some(ref dest) or Some(ref mut dest)).
However, I’m now convinced this is an invalid approach. Namely the users which want a mutable
reference may modify the Lvalue in-place, but the changes won’t be reflected in the final MIR,
since the Lvalue modified is merely a clone.
Instead, we have two accessors `destination` and `destination_mut` which return a reference to the
destination in desired mode.
This merges two separate Call terminators and uses a separate CallKind sub-enum instead.
A little bit unrelatedly, copying into destination value for a certain kind of invoke, is also
implemented here. See the associated comment in code for various details that arise with this
implementation.
