On LLVM 20, these instructions already get eliminated, which at least
partially satisfies a TODO. I'm not talented enough at using FileCheck
to try and constrain this further, but if we really want to we could
copy an LLVM 20 specific version of this test that would restore it to
being CHECK-NEXT: insertvalue ...
@rustbot label: +llvm-main
Relate receiver invariantly in method probe for `Mode::Path`
Effectively reverts part of #126128Fixes#126227
This PR changes method probing to use equality for fully path-based method lookup, and subtyping for receiver `.` method lookup.
r? lcnr
Remove semi-nondeterminism of `DefPathHash` ordering from inliner
Déjà vu or something because I kinda thought I had put this PR up before. I recall a discussion somewhere where I think it was `@saethlin` mentioning that this check was no longer needed since we have "proper" cycle detection. Putting that up as a PR now.
This may slighlty negatively affect inlining, since the cycle breaking here means that we still inlined some cycles when the def path hashes were ordered in certain ways, this leads to really bad nondeterminism that makes minimizing ICEs and putting up inliner bugfixes difficult.
r? `@cjgillot` or `@saethlin` or someone else idk
`'mir` is not a good lifetime name in `LocalAnalyzer`, because it's used
on two unrelated fields. `'a` is more standard for a situation like this
(e.g. #130022).
fix: Remove duplicate `LazyLock` example.
The top-level docs for `LazyLock` included two lines of code, each with an accompanying comment, that were identical and with nearly- identical comments. This looks like an oversight from a past edit which was perhaps trying to rewrite an existing example but ended up duplicating rather than replacing, though I haven't gone back through the Git history to check.
This commit removes what I personally think is the less-clear of the two examples.
run_make_support: rectify symlink handling
Avoid confusing Unix symlinks and Windows symlinks. Since their
semantics are quite different, we should avoid trying to make it
automagic in how symlinks are created and deleted. Notably, the tests
should reflect what type of symlinks are to be created to match what std
does to make it less surprising for test readers.
coverage: Clarify some parts of coverage counter creation
This is a series of semi-related changes that are trying to make the `counters` module easier to read, understand, and modify.
For example, the existing code happens to avoid ever using the count for a `TerminatorKind::Yield` node as the count for its sole out-edge (since doing so would be incorrect), but doesn't do so explicitly, so seemingly-innocent changes can result in baffling test failures.
This PR also takes the opportunity to simplify some debug-logging code that was making its surrounding code disproportionately hard to read.
There should be no changes to the resulting coverage instrumentation/mappings, as demonstrated by the absence of changes to the coverage test suite.
layout computation: gracefully handle unsized types in unexpected locations
This PR reworks the layout computation to eagerly return an error when encountering an unsized field where a sized field was expected, rather than delaying a bug and attempting to recover a layout. This is required, because with trivially false where clauses like `[T]: Sized`, any field can possible be an unsized type, without causing a compile error.
Since this PR removes the `delayed_bug` method from the `LayoutCalculator` trait, it essentially becomes the same as the `HasDataLayout` trait, so I've also refactored the `LayoutCalculator` to be a simple wrapper struct around a type that implements `HasDataLayout`.
The majority of the diff is whitespace changes, so viewing with whitespace ignored is advised.
implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123169#issuecomment-2025788480
r? `@compiler-errors` or compiler
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123134
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124182
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126939
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127737
Supertraits of `BuilderMethods` are all called `XyzBuilderMethods`.
Supertraits of `CodegenMethods` are all called `XyzMethods`. This commit
changes the latter to `XyzCodegenMethods`, for consistency.
It's a trait that aggregates five other traits. But consider the places
that use it.
- `BuilderMethods`: requires three of the five traits.
- `CodegenMethods`: requires zero(!) of the five traits.
- `BaseTypeMethods`: requires two of the five traits.
- `LayoutTypeMethods`: requires three of the five traits.
- `TypeMembershipMethods`: requires one of the five traits.
This commit just removes it, which makes everything simpler.
It has `Backend` and `Deref` boudns, plus an associated type
`CodegenCx`, and it has a single use. This commit "inlines" it into
`BuilderMethods`, which makes the complicated backend trait situation a
little simpler.
It only needs `Self::Value` and `Self::Type`, so it can be a subtrait of
`BackendTypes`. That is a smaller and simpler trait than `HasCodegen`
(which includes `BackendTypes` and a lot more).
[library/std/src/process.rs] `PartialEq` for `ExitCode`
Converting a third-party CLI to a library so started passing around [`std::process::ExitCode`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/process/struct.ExitCode.html) in an `Either`. Then I realised the tests can't be modified to compare equality of `ExitCode`s.
This PR fixes this oversight.
For structs that cannot be unsized, the layout algorithm sometimes moves
unsized fields to the end of the struct, which circumvented the error
for unexpected unsized fields and returned an unsized layout anyway.
This commit makes it so that the unexpected unsized error is always
returned for structs that cannot be unsized, allowing us to remove an
old hack and fixing some old ICE.
The top-level docs for `LazyLock` included two lines of code, each
with an accompanying comment, that were identical and with nearly-
identical comments. This looks like an oversight from a past edit
which was perhaps trying to rewrite an existing example but ended
up duplicating rather than replacing, though I haven't gone back
through the Git history to check.
This commit removes what I personally think is the less-clear of
the two examples.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Lilley Brinker <alilleybrinker@gmail.com>
