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.
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
Show files produced by `--emit foo` in json artifact notifications
Right now it is possible to ask `rustc` to save some intermediate representation into one or more files with `--emit=foo`, but figuring out what exactly was produced is difficult. This pull request adds information about `llvm_ir` and `asm` intermediate files into notifications produced by `--json=artifacts`.
Related discussion: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/easier-access-to-files-generated-by-emit-foo/20477
Motivation - `cargo-show-asm` parses those intermediate files and presents them in a user friendly way, but right now I have to apply some dirty hacks. Hacks make behavior confusing: https://github.com/hintron/computer-enhance/issues/35
This pull request introduces a new behavior: now `rustc` will emit a new artifact notification for every artifact type user asked to `--emit`, for example for `--emit asm` those will include all the `.s` files.
Most users won't notice this behavior, to be affected by it all of the following must hold:
- user must use `rustc` binary directly (when `cargo` invokes `rustc` - it consumes artifact notifications and doesn't emit anything)
- user must specify both `--emit xxx` and `--json artifacts`
- user must refuse to handle unknown artifact types
- user must disable incremental compilation (or deal with it better than cargo does, or use a workaround like `save-temps`) in order not to hit #88829 / #89149
This replaces the drop_in_place reference with null in vtables. On
librustc_driver.so, this drops about ~17k dynamic relocations from the
output, since many vtables can now be placed in read-only memory, rather
than having a relocated pointer included.
This makes a tradeoff by adding a null check at vtable call sites.
That's hard to avoid without changing the vtable format (e.g., to use a
pc-relative relocation instead of an absolute address, and avoid the
dynamic relocation that way). But it seems likely that the check is
cheap at runtime.
rustc_codegen_llvm: add support for writing summary bitcode
Typical uses of ThinLTO don't have any use for this as a standalone file, but distributed ThinLTO uses this to make the linker phase more efficient. With clang you'd do something like `clang -flto=thin -fthin-link-bitcode=foo.indexing.o -c foo.c` and then get both foo.o (full of bitcode) and foo.indexing.o (just the summary or index part of the bitcode). That's then usable by a two-stage linking process that's more friendly to distributed build systems like bazel, which is why I'm working on this area.
I talked some to `@teresajohnson` about naming in this area, as things seem to be a little confused between various blog posts and build systems. "bitcode index" and "bitcode summary" tend to be a little too ambiguous, and she tends to use "thin link bitcode" and "minimized bitcode" (which matches the descriptions in LLVM). Since the clang option is thin-link-bitcode, I went with that to try and not add a new spelling in the world.
Per `@dtolnay,` you can work around the lack of this by using `lld --thinlto-index-only` to do the indexing on regular .o files of bitcode, but that is a bit wasteful on actions when we already have all the information in rustc and could just write out the matching minimized bitcode. I didn't test that at all in our infrastructure, because by the time I learned that I already had this patch largely written.
Typical uses of ThinLTO don't have any use for this as a standalone
file, but distributed ThinLTO uses this to make the linker phase more
efficient. With clang you'd do something like `clang -flto=thin
-fthin-link-bitcode=foo.indexing.o -c foo.c` and then get both foo.o
(full of bitcode) and foo.indexing.o (just the summary or index part of
the bitcode). That's then usable by a two-stage linking process that's
more friendly to distributed build systems like bazel, which is why I'm
working on this area.
I talked some to @teresajohnson about naming in this area, as things
seem to be a little confused between various blog posts and build
systems. "bitcode index" and "bitcode summary" tend to be a little too
ambiguous, and she tends to use "thin link bitcode" and "minimized
bitcode" (which matches the descriptions in LLVM). Since the clang
option is thin-link-bitcode, I went with that to try and not add a new
spelling in the world.
Per @dtolnay, you can work around the lack of this by using `lld
--thinlto-index-only` to do the indexing on regular .o files of
bitcode, but that is a bit wasteful on actions when we already have all
the information in rustc and could just write out the matching minimized
bitcode. I didn't test that at all in our infrastructure, because by the
time I learned that I already had this patch largely written.
