Support tail calls in mir via `TerminatorKind::TailCall`
This is one of the interesting bits in tail call implementation — MIR support.
This adds a new `TerminatorKind` which represents a tail call:
```rust
TailCall {
func: Operand<'tcx>,
args: Vec<Operand<'tcx>>,
fn_span: Span,
},
```
*Structurally* this is very similar to a normal `Call` but is missing a few fields:
- `destination` — tail calls don't write to destination, instead they pass caller's destination to the callee (such that eventual `return` will write to the caller of the function that used tail call)
- `target` — similarly to `destination` tail calls pass the caller's return address to the callee, so there is nothing to do
- `unwind` — I _think_ this is applicable too, although it's a bit confusing
- `call_source` — `become` forbids operators and is not created as a lowering of something else; tail calls always come from HIR (at least for now)
It might be helpful to read the interpreter implementation to understand what `TailCall` means exactly, although I've tried documenting it too.
-----
There are a few `FIXME`-questions still left, ideally we'd be able to answer them during review ':)
-----
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@scottmcm` `@DrMeepster` `@JakobDegen`
Miri function identity hack: account for possible inlining
Having a non-lifetime generic is not the only reason a function can be duplicated. Another possibility is that the function may be eligible for cross-crate inlining. So also take into account the inlining attribute in this Miri hack for function pointer identity.
That said, `cross_crate_inlinable` will still sometimes return true even for `inline(never)` functions:
- when they are `DefKind::Ctor(..) | DefKind::Closure` -- I assume those cannot be `InlineAttr::Never` anyway?
- when `cross_crate_inline_threshold == InliningThreshold::Always`
so maybe this is still not quite the right criterion to use for function pointer identity.
Only compute vtable information during codegen
This PR removes vtable information from the `Object` and `TraitUpcasting` candidate sources in the trait solvers, and defers the computation of relevant information to `Instance::resolve`. This is because vtables really aren't a thing in the trait world -- they're an implementation detail in codegen.
Previously it was just easiest to tangle this information together since we were already doing the work of looking at all the supertraits in the trait solver, and specifically because we use traits to represent when it's possible to call a method via a vtable (`Object` candidate) and do upcasting (`Unsize` candidate). but I am somewhat suspicious we're doing a *lot* of extra work, especially in polymorphic contexts, so let's see what perf says.
