During inlining, the callee body is normalized and has types revealed,
but some of locals corresponding to the arguments might come from the
caller body which is not. As a result the caller body does not pass
validation without additional normalization.
The optimization conflates empty token streams with unknown token stream, which is at least suspicious, and doesn't affect performance because 0-length token streams are very rare.
The inliner looks if a sanitizer is enabled before considering
`no_sanitize` attribute as possible source of incompatibility.
The MIR inlining could happen in a crate with sanitizer disabled, but
code generation in a crate with sanitizer enabled, thus the attribute
would be incorrectly ignored.
To avoid the issue never inline functions with different `no_sanitize`
attributes.
extend min_const_generics param ty tests
Apparently we never tested for `u128` and `i128` before this, so I added a test for all types which are allowed.
r? ``@varkor``
Update cargo
5 commits in d5556aeb8405b1fe696adb6e297ad7a1f2989b62..8662ab427a8d6ad8047811cc4d78dbd20dd07699
2020-11-04 22:20:36 +0000 to 2020-11-12 03:47:53 +0000
- Check if rust-src contains a vendor dir, and patch it in (rust-lang/cargo#8834)
- Improve performance of almost fresh builds (rust-lang/cargo#8837)
- Use u32/64::to/from_le_bytes instead of bit fiddling (rust-lang/cargo#8847)
- Avoid constructing an anyhow::Error when not necessary (rust-lang/cargo#8844)
- Skip extracting .cargo-ok files from packages (rust-lang/cargo#8835)
Add asm register information for SPIR-V
As discussed in [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/182449-t-compiler.2Fhelp/topic/Defining.20asm!.20for.20new.20architecture), we at [rust-gpu](https://github.com/EmbarkStudios/rust-gpu) would like to support `asm!` for our SPIR-V backend. However, we cannot do so purely without frontend support: [this match](d4ea0b3e46/compiler/rustc_target/src/asm/mod.rs (L185)) fails and so `asm!` is not supported ([error reported here](d4ea0b3e46/compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/expr.rs (L1095))). To resolve this, we need to stub out register information for SPIR-V to support getting the `asm!` content all the way to [`AsmBuilderMethods::codegen_inline_asm`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_codegen_ssa/traits/trait.AsmBuilderMethods.html#tymethod.codegen_inline_asm), at which point the rust-gpu backend can do all the parsing and codegen that is needed.
This is a pretty weird PR - adding support for a backend that isn't in-tree feels pretty gross to me, but I don't see an easy way around this. ``@Amanieu`` said I should submit it anyway, so, here we are! Let me know if this needs to go through a more formal process (MCP?) and what I should do to help this along.
I based this off the [wasm asm PR](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/78684), which unfortunately this PR conflicts with that one quite a bit, sorry for any merge conflict pain :(
---
Some open questions:
- What do we call the register class? Some context, SPIR-V is an SSA-based IR, there are "instructions" that create IDs (referred to as `<id>` in the spec), which can be referenced by other instructions. So, `reg` isn't exactly accurate, they're SSA IDs, not re-assignable registers.
- What happens when a SPIR-V register gets to the LLVM backend? Right now it's a `bug!`, but should that be a `sess.fatal()`? I'm not sure if it's even possible to reach that point, maybe there's a check that prevents the `spirv` target from even reaching that codepath.
Improve BinaryHeap performance
By changing the condition in the loops from `child < end` to `child < end - 1` we're guaranteed that `right = child + 1 < end` and since finding the index of the biggest sibling can be done with an arithmetic operation we can remove a branch from the loop body. The case where there's no right child, i.e. `child == end - 1` is instead handled outside the loop, after it ends; note that if the loops ends early we can use `return` instead of `break` since the check `child == end - 1` will surely fail.
I've also removed a call to `<[T]>::swap` that was hiding a bound check that [wasn't being optimized by LLVM](https://godbolt.org/z/zrhdGM).
A quick benchmarks on my pc shows that the gains are pretty significant:
|name |before ns/iter |after ns/iter |diff ns/iter |diff % |speedup |
|---------------------|----------------|---------------|--------------|----------|--------|
|find_smallest_1000 | 352,565 | 260,098 | -92,467 | -26.23% | x 1.36 |
|from_vec | 676,795 | 473,934 | -202,861 | -29.97% | x 1.43 |
|into_sorted_vec | 469,511 | 304,275 | -165,236 | -35.19% | x 1.54 |
|pop | 483,198 | 373,778 | -109,420 | -22.64% | x 1.29 |
The other 2 benchmarks for `BinaryHeap` (`peek_mut_deref_mut` and `push`) weren't impacted and as such didn't show any significant change.
Implement destructuring assignment for structs and slices
This is the second step towards implementing destructuring assignment (RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2909, tracking issue: #71126). This PR is the second part of #71156, which was split up to allow for easier review.
Note that the first PR (#78748) is not merged yet, so it is included as the first commit in this one. I thought this would allow the review to start earlier because I have some time this weekend to respond to reviews. If ``@petrochenkov`` prefers to wait until the first PR is merged, I totally understand, of course.
This PR implements destructuring assignment for (tuple) structs and slices. In order to do this, the following *parser change* was necessary: struct expressions are not required to have a base expression, i.e. `Struct { a: 1, .. }` becomes legal (in order to act like a struct pattern).
Unfortunately, this PR slightly regresses the diagnostics implemented in #77283. However, it is only a missing help message in `src/test/ui/issues/issue-77218.rs`. Other instances of this diagnostic are not affected. Since I don't exactly understand how this help message works and how to fix it yet, I was hoping it's OK to regress this temporarily and fix it in a follow-up PR.
Thanks to ``@varkor`` who helped with the implementation, particularly around the struct rest changes.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
Reusing bindings causes errors later in lowering:
```
error[E0596]: cannot borrow `vec` as mutable, as it is not declared as mutable
--> /checkout/src/test/ui/async-await/argument-patterns.rs:12:20
|
LL | async fn b(n: u32, ref mut vec: A) {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^
| |
| cannot borrow as mutable
| help: consider changing this to be mutable: `mut vec`
```
incr-comp: hash and serialize span end line/column
Hash both the length and the end location (line/column) of a span. If we
hash only the length, for example, then two otherwise equal spans with
different end locations will have the same hash. This can cause a
problem during incremental compilation wherein a previous result for a
query that depends on the end location of a span will be incorrectly
reused when the end location of the span it depends on has changed. A
similar analysis applies if some query depends specifically on the
length of the span, but we only hash the end location. So hash both.
Fix#46744, fix#59954, fix#63161, fix#73640, fix#73967, fix#74890, fix#75900
---
See #74890 for a more in-depth analysis.
I haven't thought about what other problems this root cause could be responsible for. Please let me know if anything springs to mind. I believe the issue has existed since the inception of incremental compilation.
If the LLVM was externally provided, then we don't currently copy artifacts into
the sysroot. This is not necessarily the right choice (in particular, it will
require the LLVM dylib to be in the linker's load path at runtime), but the
common use case for external LLVMs is distribution provided LLVMs, and in that
case they're usually in the standard search path (e.g., /usr/lib) and copying
them here is going to cause problems as we may end up with the wrong files and
isn't what distributions want.
This behavior may be revisited in the future though.
This commit grepped for LLVM_VERSION_GE, LLVM_VERSION_LT, get_major_version and
min-llvm-version and statically evaluated every expression possible
(and sensible) assuming that the LLVM version is >=9 now
