Allow specifying alignment for functions
Fixes#75072
This allows the user to specify alignment for functions, which can be useful for low level work where functions need to necessarily be aligned to a specific value.
I believe the error cases not covered in the match are caught earlier based on my testing so I had them just return `None`.
Prevent very long compilation runtimes in LateBoundRegionNameCollector
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/83150
On recursive types such as in the example given in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/83150, the current implementation of `LateBoundRegionNameCollector` has very long compilation runtimes. To prevent those we store the types visited in the `middle::ty::Visitor` implementation of `LateBoundRegionNameCollector` in a `SsoHashSet`.
2229: Fix diagnostic issue when using FakeReads in closures
This PR fixes a diagnostic issue caused by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/82536. A temporary work around was used in this merged PR which involved feature gating the addition of FakeReads introduced as a result of pattern matching in closures.
The fix involves adding an optional closure DefId to ForLet and ForMatchedPlace FakeReadCauses. This DefId will only be added if a closure pattern matches a Place starting with an Upvar.
r? ```@nikomatsakis```
Translate counters from Rust 1-based to LLVM 0-based counter ids
A colleague contacted me and asked why Rust's counters start at 1, when
Clangs appear to start at 0. There is a reason why Rust's internal
counters start at 1 (see the docs), and I tried to keep them consistent
when codegenned to LLVM's coverage mapping format. LLVM should be
tolerant of missing counters, but as my colleague pointed out,
`llvm-cov` will silently fail to generate a coverage report for a
function based on LLVM's assumption that the counters are 0-based.
See:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/ProfileData/Coverage/CoverageMapping.cpp#L170
Apparently, if, for example, a function has no branches, it would have
exactly 1 counter. `CounterValues.size()` would be 1, and (with the
1-based index), the counter ID would be 1. This would fail the check
and abort reporting coverage for the function.
It turns out that by correcting for this during coverage map generation,
by subtracting 1 from the Rust Counter ID (both when generating the
counter increment intrinsic call, and when adding counters to the map),
some uncovered functions (including in tests) now appear covered! This
corrects the coverage for a few tests!
r? `@tmandry`
FYI: `@wesleywiser`
A colleague contacted me and asked why Rust's counters start at 1, when
Clangs appear to start at 0. There is a reason why Rust's internal
counters start at 1 (see the docs), and I tried to keep them consistent
when codegenned to LLVM's coverage mapping format. LLVM should be
tolerant of missing counters, but as my colleague pointed out,
`llvm-cov` will silently fail to generate a coverage report for a
function based on LLVM's assumption that the counters are 0-based.
See:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/ProfileData/Coverage/CoverageMapping.cpp#L170
Apparently, if, for example, a function has no branches, it would have
exactly 1 counter. `CounterValues.size()` would be 1, and (with the
1-based index), the counter ID would be 1. This would fail the check
and abort reporting coverage for the function.
It turns out that by correcting for this during coverage map generation,
by subtracting 1 from the Rust Counter ID (both when generating the
counter increment intrinsic call, and when adding counters to the map),
some uncovered functions (including in tests) now appear covered! This
corrects the coverage for a few tests!
normalize mir::Constant differently from ty::Const in preparation for valtrees
Valtrees are unable to represent many kind of constant values (this is on purpose). For constants that are used at runtime, we do not need a valtree representation and can thus use a different form of evaluation. In order to make this explicit and less fragile, I added a `fold_constant` method to `TypeFolder` and implemented it for normalization. Normalization can now, when it wants to eagerly evaluate a constant, normalize `mir::Constant` directly into a `mir::ConstantKind::Val` instead of relying on the `ty::Const` evaluation.
In the future we can get rid of the `ty::Const` in there entirely and add our own `Unevaluated` variant to `mir::ConstantKind`. This would allow us to remove the `promoted` field from `ty::ConstKind::Unevaluated`, as promoteds can never occur in the type system.
cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval`
r? `@lcnr`
Fix expected/found order on impl trait projection mismatch error
fixes#68561
This PR adds a new `ObligationCauseCode` used when checking the concrete type of an impl trait satisfies its bounds, and checks for that cause code in the existing test to see if a projection's normalized type should be the "expected" or "found" type.
The second commit adds a `peel_derives` to that test, which appears to be necessary in some cases (see projection-mismatch-in-impl-where-clause.rs, which would still give expected/found in the wrong order otherwise). This caused some other changes in diagnostics not involving impl trait, but they look correct to me.
Stream the dep-graph to a file instead of storing it in-memory.
This is a reimplementation of #60035.
Instead of storing the dep-graph in-memory, the nodes are encoded as they come
into the a temporary file as they come. At the end of a successful the compilation,
this file is renamed to be the persistent dep-graph, to be decoded during the next
compilation session.
This two-files scheme avoids overwriting the dep-graph on unsuccessful or crashing compilations.
The structure of the file is modified to be the sequence of `(DepNode, Fingerprint, EdgesVec)`.
The deserialization is responsible for going to the more compressed representation.
The `node_count` and `edge_count` are stored in the last 16 bytes of the file,
in order to accurately reserve capacity for the vectors.
At the end of the compilation, the encoder is flushed and dropped.
The graph is not usable after this point: any creation of a node will ICE.
I had to retrofit the debugging options, which is not really pretty.
rustdoc: Only look at blanket impls in `get_blanket_impls`
The idea here is that all the work in 16156fb278/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/trait_def.rs (L172-L186) doesn't matter for `get_blanket_impls` - Rustdoc will already pick up on those blocks when it documents the item.
Run LLVM coverage instrumentation passes before optimization passes
This matches the behavior of Clang and allows us to remove several
hacks which were needed to ensure functions weren't optimized away
before reaching the instrumentation pass.
Fixes#83429
cc `@richkadel`
r? `@tmandry`
This matches the behavior of Clang and allows us to remove several
hacks which were needed to ensure functions weren't optimized away
before reaching the instrumentation pass.
- Add back various diagnostic methods on `Session`.
It seems unfortunate to duplicate these in so many places, but in the
meantime, making the API inconsistent between `Session` and `Diagnostic`
also seems unfortunate.
- Add back TyCtxtAt methods
These will hopefully be used in the near future.
- Add back `with_const`, it would need to be added soon after anyway.
- Add back `split()` and `get_mut()`, they're useful.
Found with https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer.
Dubious changes:
- Is anyone else using rustc_apfloat? I feel weird completely deleting
x87 support.
- Maybe some of the dead code in rustc_data_structures, in case someone
wants to use it in the future?
- Don't change rustc_serialize
I plan to scrap most of the json module in the near future (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/418) and fixing the
tests needed more work than I expected.
TODO: check if any of the comments on the deleted code should be kept.
Add function core::iter::zip
This makes it a little easier to `zip` iterators:
```rust
for (x, y) in zip(xs, ys) {}
// vs.
for (x, y) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys) {}
```
You can `zip(&mut xs, &ys)` for the conventional `iter_mut()` and
`iter()`, respectively. This can also support arbitrary nesting, where
it's easier to see the item layout than with arbitrary `zip` chains:
```rust
for ((x, y), z) in zip(zip(xs, ys), zs) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in zip(xs, zip(ys, zs)) {}
// vs.
for ((x, y), z) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys).zip(xz) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in xs.into_iter().zip((ys.into_iter().zip(xz)) {}
```
It may also format more nicely, especially when the first iterator is a
longer chain of methods -- for example:
```rust
iter::zip(
trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
)
// vs.
trait_ref
.substs
.types()
.skip(1)
.zip(impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1))
```
This replaces the tuple-pair `IntoIterator` in #78204.
There is prior art for the utility of this in [`itertools::zip`].
[`itertools::zip`]: https://docs.rs/itertools/0.10.0/itertools/fn.zip.html
make unaligned_references future-incompat lint warn-by-default
and also remove the safe_packed_borrows lint that it replaces.
`std::ptr::addr_of!` has hit beta now and will hit stable in a month, so I propose we start fixing https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27060 for real: creating a reference to a field of a packed struct needs to eventually become a hard error; this PR makes it a warn-by-default future-incompat lint. (The lint already existed, this just raises its default level.) At the same time I removed the corresponding code from unsafety checking; really there's no reason an `unsafe` block should make any difference here.
For references to packed fields outside `unsafe` blocks, this means `unaligned_refereces` replaces the previous `safe_packed_borrows` warning with a link to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82523 (and no more talk about unsafe blocks making any difference). So behavior barely changes, the warning is just worded differently. For references to packed fields inside `unsafe` blocks, this PR shows a new future-incompat warning.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/46043 because that lint no longer exists.
combine: stop eagerly evaluating consts
`super_relate_consts` eagerly evaluates constants which doesn't seem too great.
I now also finally understand why all of the unused substs test passed. The reason being
that we just evaluated the constants in `super_relate_consts` 😆
While this change isn't strictly necessary as evaluating consts here doesn't hurt, it still feels a lot cleaner to do it this way
r? `@oli-obk` `@nikomatsakis`
