Split mcdc code to a sub module of coverageinfo
A further work from #124217 . I have made relatively large changes when working on #124278 so that it would better split them from `coverageinfo.rs` to avoid potential troubling merge work with improved branch coverage by `@Zalathar` .
Besides `BlockMarkerGenerator` is added to avoid ownership problems (mostly needed for following change of #124278 )
All code changes are done in [a37d737a](a3d737a086) while the second commit just renames the file.
cc `@RenjiSann` `@Zalathar`
This will impact your current work.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #124519 (adapt a codegen test for llvm 19)
- #124524 (Add StaticForeignItem and use it on ForeignItemKind)
- #124540 (Give proof tree visitors the ability to instantiate nested goals directly)
- #124543 (codegen tests: Tolerate `range()` qualifications in enum tests)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
codegen tests: Tolerate `range()` qualifications in enum tests
Current LLVM can infer range bounds on the i8s involved with these tests, and annotates it. Accept these bounds if present.
`@rustbot` label: +llvm-main
cc `@durin42`
Give proof tree visitors the ability to instantiate nested goals directly
Useful when we want to look at the nested goals but not necessarily visit them (e.g. in select).
r? lcnr
Add StaticForeignItem and use it on ForeignItemKind
This is in preparation for unsafe extern blocks that adds a safe variant for functions inside extern blocks.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@compiler-errors`
coverage: Replace boolean options with a `CoverageLevel` enum
After #123409, and some discussion at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79649#issuecomment-2042093553 and #124120, it became clear to me that we should have a unified concept of “coverage level”, instead of having several separate boolean flags that aren't actually independent.
This PR therefore introduces a `CoverageLevel` enum, to replace the existing boolean flags for `branch` and `mcdc`.
The `no-branch` value (for `-Zcoverage-options`) has been renamed to `block`, instructing the compiler to only instrument for block coverage, with no branch coverage or MD/DC instrumentation.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
cc `@ZhuUx` `@Lambdaris` `@RenjiSann`
Add a note to the ArbitraryExpressionInPattern error
The current "arbitrary expressions aren't allowed in patterns" error is confusing, as it fires for code where it *looks* like a pattern but the compiler still treats it as an expression. That this is due to the `:expr` fragment specifier forcing the expression-ness property on the code.
In the test suite, the "arbitrary expressions aren't allowed in patterns" error can only be found in combination with macro_rules macros that force expression-ness of their content, namely via `:expr` metavariables. I also can't come up with cases where there would be an expression instead of a pattern, so I think it's always coming from an `:expr`.
In order to make the error less confusing, this adds a note explaining the weird `:expr` fragment behaviour.
Fixes#99380
Remove optionality from MoveData::base_local
This is an artifact from when Places could be based on statics and not just locals. Now, all move paths either are locals or have parents, so this doesn't need to return Option anymore.
[Refactor] Rename `Lint` and `LintGroup`'s `is_loaded` to `is_externally_loaded`
The field being named `is_loaded` was very confusing. Turns out it's true for lints that are registered by external tools like Clippy (I had to look at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116412 to know what the variable meant). So I renamed `is_loaded` to `is_externally_loaded` and added some docs.
coverage: Avoid hard-coded values when visiting logical ops
This is a tiny little thing that I noticed during the final review of #123409, and I didn't want to hold up the whole PR just for this.
Instead of separately hard-coding the operation being visited, we can get it from the match arm pattern by using an as-pattern.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
Mark unions non-const-propagatable in `KnownPanicsLint` without calling layout
Fixes#123710
The ICE occurs during the layout calculation of the union `InvalidTag` in #123710 because the following assert fails:5fe8b697e7/compiler/rustc_abi/src/layout.rs (L289-L292)
The layout calculation is invoked by `KnownPanicsLint` when it is trying to figure out which locals it can const prop. Since `KnownPanicsLint` is never actually going to const props unions thanks to PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121628 there's no point calling layout to check if it can. So in this fix I skip the call to layout and just mark the local non-const propagatable if it is a union.
Fix#124478 - offset_of! returns a temporary
This was due to the must_use() call. Adding HIR's `OffsetOf` to the must_use checking within the compiler avoids this issue while maintaining the lint output.
Fixes#124478. `@tgross35`
Remove direct dependencies on lazy_static, once_cell and byteorder
The relevant functionality of all three crates is now available and stable in the standard library, i.e. `std::sync::OnceLock` and `{integer}::to_le_bytes`. I think waiting for `LazyLock` (#109736) would give marginally more concise code, but not by much.
Use probes more aggressively in new solver
....so that we have the right candidate information when assembling trait and normalizes-to goals.
Also gets rid of misc probes.
r? lcnr
CI: remove `master` job
It only had one job (pun intended), to publish the toolstate. We could probably do that at the end of `auto` builds instead, which is what is done in this PR.
r? `@pietroalbini`
MCDC coverage: support nested decision coverage
#123409 provided the initial MCDC coverage implementation.
As referenced in #124144, it does not currently support "nested" decisions, like the following example :
```rust
fn nested_if_in_condition(a: bool, b: bool, c: bool) {
if a && if b || c { true } else { false } {
say("yes");
} else {
say("no");
}
}
```
Note that there is an if-expression (`if b || c ...`) embedded inside a boolean expression in the decision of an outer if-expression.
This PR proposes a workaround for this cases, by introducing a Decision context stack, and by handing several `temporary condition bitmaps` instead of just one.
When instrumenting boolean expressions, if the current node is a leaf condition (i.e. not a `||`/`&&` logical operator nor a `!` not operator), we insert a new decision context, such that if there are more boolean expressions inside the condition, they are handled as separate expressions.
On the codegen LLVM side, we allocate as many `temp_cond_bitmap`s as necessary to handle the maximum encountered decision depth.
