Stop using LLVM struct types for alloca
The alloca type has no semantic meaning, only the size (and alignment, but we specify it explicitly) matter. Using `[N x i8]` is a more direct way to specify that we want `N` bytes, and avoids relying on LLVM's struct layout. It is likely that a future LLVM version will change to an untyped alloca representation.
Split out from #121577.
r? `@ghost`
Dellvmize some intrinsics (use `u32` instead of `Self` in some integer intrinsics)
This implements https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/693 minus what was implemented in #123226.
Note: I decided to _not_ change `shl`/... builder methods, as it just doesn't seem worth it.
r? ``@scottmcm``
Introduce perma-unstable `wasm-c-abi` flag
Now that `wasm-bindgen` v0.2.88 supports the spec-compliant C ABI, the idea is to switch to that in a future version of Rust. In the meantime it would be good to let people test and play around with it.
This PR introduces a new perma-unstable `-Zwasm-c-abi` compiler flag, which switches to the new spec-compliant C ABI when targeting `wasm32-unknown-unknown`.
Alternatively, we could also stabilize this and then deprecate it when we switch. I will leave this to the Rust maintainers to decide.
This is a companion PR to #117918, but they could be merged independently.
MCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/703
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122532
Add `Ord::cmp` for primitives as a `BinOp` in MIR
Update: most of this OP was written months ago. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118310#issuecomment-2016940014 below for where we got to recently that made it ready for review.
---
There are dozens of reasonable ways to implement `Ord::cmp` for integers using comparison, bit-ops, and branches. Those differences are irrelevant at the rust level, however, so we can make things better by adding `BinOp::Cmp` at the MIR level:
1. Exactly how to implement it is left up to the backends, so LLVM can use whatever pattern its optimizer best recognizes and cranelift can use whichever pattern codegens the fastest.
2. By not inlining those details for every use of `cmp`, we drastically reduce the amount of MIR generated for `derive`d `PartialOrd`, while also making it more amenable to MIR-level optimizations.
Having extremely careful `if` ordering to μoptimize resource usage on broadwell (#63767) is great, but it really feels to me like libcore is the wrong place to put that logic. Similarly, using subtraction [tricks](https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#CopyIntegerSign) (#105840) is arguably even nicer, but depends on the optimizer understanding it (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/73417) to be practical. Or maybe [bitor is better than add](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/representing-in-ir/67369/2?u=scottmcm)? But maybe only on a future version that [has `or disjoint` support](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-add-or-disjoint-flag/75036?u=scottmcm)? And just because one of those forms happens to be good for LLVM, there's no guarantee that it'd be the same form that GCC or Cranelift would rather see -- especially given their very different optimizers. Not to mention that if LLVM gets a spaceship intrinsic -- [which it should](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Suboptimal.20inlining.20in.20std.20function.20.60binary_search.60/near/404250586) -- we'll need at least a rustc intrinsic to be able to call it.
As for simplifying it in Rust, we now regularly inline `{integer}::partial_cmp`, but it's quite a large amount of IR. The best way to see that is with 8811efa88b (diff-d134c32d028fbe2bf835fef2df9aca9d13332dd82284ff21ee7ebf717bfa4765R113) -- I added a new pre-codegen MIR test for a simple 3-tuple struct, and this PR change it from 36 locals and 26 basic blocks down to 24 locals and 8 basic blocks. Even better, as soon as the construct-`Some`-then-match-it-in-same-BB noise is cleaned up, this'll expose the `Cmp == 0` branches clearly in MIR, so that an InstCombine (#105808) can simplify that to just a `BinOp::Eq` and thus fix some of our generated code perf issues. (Tracking that through today's `if a < b { Less } else if a == b { Equal } else { Greater }` would be *much* harder.)
---
r? `@ghost`
But first I should check that perf is ok with this
~~...and my true nemesis, tidy.~~
