Fix to register analysis passes with -Zllvm-plugins at link-time
This PR fixes an unexpected behavior of the `-Zllvm-plugins` flag. It allows to run an out-of-tree pass as part of LTO.
However, analysis passes are registered before the plugin is loaded. As a result an analysis pass, which is passed as a plugin, is not registered. This causes the LLVM PassManager to fail when the analysis pass is queried from a transformation pass [(here)](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/include/llvm/IR/PassManager.h#L776).
This fix mimics the bahavior in [LLVM LTOBackend.cpp](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/LTO/LTOBackend.cpp#L273) by loading the plugin before the analysis passes are registered.
Tested with rustc 1.60 and 1.65 and LLVM-13.0.1.
Bump host compiler on x64 dist Linux to LLVM 17.0.2
17.0.0-rc3 had a bunch of miscompilations, and it's probably better in general not to use a RC version of LLVM long term on CI.
Fix generic bound of `str::SplitInclusive`'s `DoubleEndedIterator` impl
`str::SplitInclusive`'s `DoubleEndedIterator` implementation currently uses a `ReverseSearcher` bound for the corresponding searcher. A `DoubleEndedSearcher` bound should have been used instead.
`DoubleEndedIterator` requires that repeated `next_back` calls produce the same items as repeated `next` calls, in opposite order. `ReverseSearcher` lets you search starting from the back of a string, but it makes no guarantees about how its matches correspond to the matches found by a forward search. `DoubleEndedSearcher` is a subtrait of `ReverseSearcher` and does require that the same matches are found in both directions.
This bug fix is a breaking change. Calling `next_back` on `"a+++b".split_inclusive("++")` is currently accepted with repeated calls producing `"b"` and `"a+++"`, while forward iteration yields `"a++"` and `"+b"`. Also see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100756#issuecomment-1221307166 for more details.
I believe that this is the only iterator that uses this bound incorrectly — other related iterators such as `str::Split` do have a `DoubleEndedSearcher` bound for their `DoubleEndedIterator` implementation. And `slice::SplitInclusive` doesn't face this problem at all because it doesn't use patterns, only a predicate.
cc `@SkiFire13`
remove Key impls for types that involve an AllocId
I don't understand how but somehow that leads to issues like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/83085? Anyway removing unused impls doesn't seem like a bad idea. The concerning part is that of course nothing will stop us from having such impls again in the future, alongside re-introducing bugs like #83085.
r? `@oli-obk`
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #116277 (dont call mir.post_mono_checks in codegen)
- #116400 (Detect missing `=>` after match guard during parsing)
- #116458 (Properly export function defined in test which uses global_asm!())
- #116500 (Add tvOS to target_os for register_dtor)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Properly export function defined in test which uses global_asm!()
Currently the test passes with the LLVM backend as the codegen unit partitioning logic happens to place both the global_asm!() and the function which calls the function defined by the global_asm!() in the same CGU. With the Cranelift backend it breaks however as it will place all assembly in separate codegen units to be passed to an external linker.
Detect missing `=>` after match guard during parsing
```
error: expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`, found `.`
--> $DIR/missing-fat-arrow.rs:25:14
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b {
| - while parsing this struct
LL | a.value = 1;
| -^ expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`
| |
| while parsing this struct field
|
help: try naming a field
|
LL | a: a.value = 1;
| ++
help: you might have meant to start a match arm after the match guard
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b => {
| ++
```
Fix#78585.
Reuse existing `Some`s in `Option::(x)or`
LLVM still has trouble re-using discriminants sometimes when rebuilding a two-variant enum, so when we have the correct variant already built, just use it.
That's shorter in the Rust code, as well as simpler in MIR and the optimized LLVM, so might as well: <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/KhdE8eToW>
Thanks to `@veber-alex` for pointing out this opportunity in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101210#issuecomment-1732470941
Show more information when multiple `impl`s apply
- When there are `impl`s without type params, show only those (to avoid showing overly generic `impl`s).
```
error[E0283]: type annotations needed
--> $DIR/multiple-impl-apply.rs:34:9
|
LL | let y = x.into();
| ^ ---- type must be known at this point
|
note: multiple `impl`s satisfying `_: From<Baz>` found
--> $DIR/multiple-impl-apply.rs:14:1
|
LL | impl From<Baz> for Bar {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
LL | impl From<Baz> for Foo {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: required for `Baz` to implement `Into<_>`
help: consider giving `y` an explicit type
|
LL | let y: /* Type */ = x.into();
| ++++++++++++
```
- Lower the importance of `T: Sized`, `T: WellFormed` and coercion errors, to prioritize more relevant errors. The pre-existing deduplication logic deals with hiding redundant errors better that way, and we show errors with more metadata that is useful to the user.
- Show `<SelfTy as Trait>::assoc_fn` suggestion in more cases.
```
error[E0790]: cannot call associated function on trait without specifying the corresponding `impl` type
--> $DIR/cross-return-site-inference.rs:38:16
|
LL | return Err(From::from("foo"));
| ^^^^^^^^^^ cannot call associated function of trait
|
help: use a fully-qualified path to a specific available implementation
|
LL | return Err(</* self type */ as From>::from("foo"));
| +++++++++++++++++++ +
```
Fix#88284.
