Support inlining diverging function calls
The existing heuristic does penalize diverging calls to some degree, but since
it never inlined them previously it might need some further modifications.
Additionally introduce storage markers for all temporaries created by
the inliner. The temporary introduced for destination rebrorrow, didn't
use them previously.
Add flags customizing behaviour of MIR inlining
* `-Zinline-mir-threshold` to change the default threshold.
* `-Zinline-mir-hint-threshold` to change the threshold used by
functions with inline hint.
Having those as configurable flags makes it possible to experiment with with
different inlining thresholds and substantially increase test coverage of MIR
inlining when used with increased thresholds (for example, necessary to test
#78844).
look at assoc ct, check the type of nodes
an example where types matter are function objects, see the added test which previously passed.
Now does a shallow comparison of unevaluated constants.
r? ```@oli-obk```
BTreeMap: split off most code of append
To complete #78056, move the last single-purpose pieces of code out of map.rs into a separate module. Also, tweaked documentation and safeness - I doubt think this code would be safe if the iterators passed in wouldn't be as sorted as the method says they should be - and bounds on MergeIterInner.
r? ```@Mark-Simulacrum```
Support enable/disable sanitizers/profiler per target
This PR add options under `[target.*]` of `config.toml` which can enable or disable sanitizers/profiler runtime for corresponding target.
If these options are empty, the global options under `[build]` will take effect.
Fix#78329
Duration::zero() -> Duration::ZERO
In review for #72790, whether or not a constant or a function should be favored for `#![feature(duration_zero)]` was seen as an open question. In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73544#issuecomment-691701670 an invitation was opened to either stabilize the methods or propose a switch to the constant value, supplemented with reasoning. Followup comments suggested community preference leans towards the const ZERO, which would be reason enough.
ZERO also "makes sense" beside existing associated consts for Duration. It is ever so slightly awkward to have a series of constants specifying 1 of various units but leave 0 as a method, especially when they are side-by-side in code. It seems unintuitive for the one non-dynamic value (that isn't from Default) to be not-a-const, which could hurt discoverability of the associated constants overall. Elsewhere in `std`, methods for obtaining a constant value were even deprecated, as seen with [std::u32::min_value](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.u32.html#method.min_value).
Most importantly, ZERO costs less to use. A match supports a const pattern, but const fn can only be used if evaluated through a const context such as an inline `const { const_fn() }` or a `const NAME: T = const_fn()` declaration elsewhere. Likewise, while https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73544#issuecomment-691949373 notes `Duration::zero()` can optimize to a constant value, "can" is not "will". Only const contexts have a strong promise of such. Even without that in mind, the comment in question still leans in favor of the constant for simplicity. As it costs less for a developer to use, may cost less to optimize, and seems to have more of a community consensus for it, the associated const seems best.
r? ```@LukasKalbertodt```
Majority of targets use "unknown" vendor and changing it from "unknown" to omitted doesn't make sense.
From the LLVM docs (https://clang.llvm.org/docs/CrossCompilation.html#target-triple):
>Most of the time it can be omitted (and Unknown) will be assumed, which sets the defaults for the specified architecture.
>When a parameter is not important, it can be omitted, or you can choose unknown and the defaults will be used. If you choose a parameter that Clang doesn’t know, like blerg, it’ll ignore and assume unknown
The discussion seems to have resolved that this lint is a bit "noisy" in
that applying it in all places would result in a reduction in
readability.
A few of the trivial functions (like `Path::new`) are fine to leave
outside of closures.
The general rule seems to be that anything that is obviously an
allocation (`Box`, `Vec`, `vec![]`) should be in a closure, even if it
is a 0-sized allocation.
Rollup of 14 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #76765 (Make it more clear what an about async fn's returns when referring to what it returns)
- #78574 (Use check-pass instead of build-pass in regions ui test suite)
- #78669 (Use check-pass instead of build-pass in some consts ui test suits)
- #78847 (Assert that a return place is not used for indexing during integration)
- #78854 (Workaround for "could not fully normalize" ICE )
- #78875 (rustc_target: Further cleanup use of target options)
- #78887 (Add comments to explain memory usage optimization)
- #78890 (comment attribution fix)
- #78896 (Clarified description of write! macro)
- #78897 (Add missing newline to error message of the default OOM hook)
- #78898 (add regression test for #78892)
- #78908 ((rustdoc) [src] link for types defined by macros shows invocation, not defintion)
- #78910 (Fix links to stabilized versions of some intrinsics)
- #78912 (Add macro test for min-const-generics)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
It was only ever used with Vec<u8> anyway. This simplifies some things.
- It no longer needs to be flushed, because that's a no-op anyway for
a Vec<u8>.
- Writing to a Vec<u8> never fails.
- No #[cfg(test)] code is needed anymore to use `realstd` instead of
`std`, because Vec comes from alloc, not std (like Write).
(rustdoc) [src] link for types defined by macros shows invocation, not defintion
Previously the [src] link on types defined by a macro pointed to the macro definition.
This pr makes the Clean-Implementation for Spans aware of macro defined types, so that the link points to the invocation instead.
I'm not totally sure if it's okay to add the 'macro awareness' in the Clean-Implementation, because it erases that knowledge for all following code. Maybe it would be more sensible to add the check only for the link generation at 25f6938da4/src/librustdoc/html/render/mod.rs (L1619)Closes#39726.
