`codegen_allocator` and `write_metadata` mutate the underlying LLVM module. As
such, it makes sense for these two functions to receive a mutable reference to
the module (as opposed to an immutable one).
Stabilize slice_sort_by_cached_key
I was going to ask on the tracking issue (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/34447), but decided to just send this and hope for an FCP here. The method was added last March by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48639.
Signature: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.slice.html#method.sort_by_cached_key
```rust
impl [T] {
pub fn sort_by_cached_key<K, F>(&mut self, f: F)
where F: FnMut(&T) -> K, K: Ord;
}
```
That's an identical signature to the existing `sort_by_key`, so I think the questions are just naming, implementation, and the usual "do we want this?".
The implementation seems to have proven its use in rustc at least, which many uses: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/search?l=Rust&q=sort_by_cached_key
(I'm asking because it's exactly what I just needed the other day:
```rust
all_positions.sort_by_cached_key(|&n|
data::CITIES.iter()
.map(|x| *metric_closure.get_edge(n, x.pos).unwrap())
.sum::<usize>()
);
```
since caching that key is a pretty obviously good idea.)
Closes#34447
Currently the compiler will produce an error if both incremental
compilation and full fat LTO is requested. With recent changes and the
advent of incremental ThinLTO, however, all the hard work is already
done for us and it's actually not too bad to remove this error!
This commit updates the codegen backend to allow incremental full fat
LTO. The semantics are that the input modules to LTO are all produce
incrementally, but the final LTO step is always done unconditionally
regardless of whether the inputs changed or not. The only real
incremental win we could have here is if zero of the input modules
changed, but that's so rare it's unlikely to be worthwhile to implement
such a code path.
cc #57968
cc rust-lang/cargo#6643
Implement optimize(size) and optimize(speed) attributes
This PR implements both `optimize(size)` and `optimize(speed)` attributes.
While the functionality itself works fine now, this PR is not yet complete: the code might be messy in places and, most importantly, the compiletest must be improved with functionality to run tests with custom optimization levels. Otherwise the new attribute cannot be tested properly. Oh, and not all of the RFC is implemented – attribute propagation is not implemented for example.
# TODO
* [x] Improve compiletest so that tests can be written;
* [x] Assign a proper error number (E9999 currently, no idea how to allocate a number properly);
* [ ] Perhaps reduce the duplication in LLVM attribute assignment code…
This was originally attempted in #57048 but it was realized that we
could fully remove the crate via the `"unadjusted"` ABI on intrinsics.
This means that all intrinsics in stdsimd are implemented directly
against LLVM rather than using the abstraction layer provided here. That
ends up meaning that this crate is no longer used at all.
This crate developed long ago to implement the SIMD intrinsics, but we
didn't end up using it in the long run. In that case let's remove it!
Generalized operand.rs#nontemporal_store and fixed tidy issues
Generalized operand.rs#nontemporal_store's implem even more
With a BuilderMethod trait implemented by Builder for LLVM
Cleaned builder.rs : no more code duplication, no more ValueTrait
Full traitification of builder.rs
