Fix issue #78496
EarlyOtherwiseBranch finds MIR structures like:
```
bb0: {
...
_2 = discriminant(X)
...
switchInt(_2) -> [1_isize: bb1, otherwise: bb3]
}
bb1: {
...
_3 = discriminant(Y)
...
switchInt(_3) -> [1_isize: bb2, otherwise: bb3]
}
bb2: {...}
bb3: {...}
```
And transforms them into something like:
```
bb0: {
...
_2 = discriminant(X)
_3 = discriminant(Y)
_4 = Eq(_2, _3)
switchInt(_4) -> [true: bb4, otherwise: bb3]
}
bb2: {...} // unchanged
bb3: {...} // unchanged
bb4: {
switchInt(_2) -> [1_isize: bb2, otherwise: bb3]
}
```
But that is not always a safe thing to do -- sometimes the early `otherwise` branch is necessary so the later block could assume the value of `discriminant(X)`.
I am not totally sure what's the best way to detect that, but fixing #78496 should be easy -- we just check if `X` is a sub-expression of `Y`. A more precise test might be to check if `Y` contains a `Downcast(1)` of `X`, but I think this might be good enough.
Fix#78496
Allow `since="TBD"` for rustc_deprecated
Closes#78381.
This PR only affects `#[rustc_deprecated]`, not `#[deprecated]`, so there is no effect on any stable language feature.
Likewise this PR only implements `since="TBD"`, it does not actually tag any library functions with it, so there is no effect on any stable API.
Overview of changes:
* `rustc_middle/stability.rs`:
* change `deprecation_in_effect` function to return `false` when `since="TBD"`
* tidy up the compiler output when a deprecated item has `since="TBD"`
* `rustc_passes/stability.rs`:
* allow `since="TBD"` to pass the sanity check for stable_version < deprecated_version
* refactor the "invalid stability version" and "invalid deprecation version" error into separate errors
* rustdoc: make `since="TBD"` message on a deprecated item's page match the command-line deprecation output
* tests:
* test rustdoc output
* test that the `deprecated_in_future` lint fires when `since="TBD"`
* test the new "invalid deprecation version" error message
Implement if-let match guards
Implements rust-lang/rfcs#2294 (tracking issue: #51114).
I probably should do a few more things before this can be merged:
- [x] Add tests (added basic tests, more advanced tests could be done in the future?)
- [x] Add lint for exhaustive if-let guard (comparable to normal if-let statements)
- [x] Fix clippy
However since this is a nightly feature maybe it's fine to land this and do those steps in follow-up PRs.
Thanks a lot `@matthewjasper` ❤️ for helping me with lowering to MIR! Would you be interested in reviewing this?
r? `@ghost` for now
Implement if-let match guards
Implements rust-lang/rfcs#2294 (tracking issue: #51114).
I probably should do a few more things before this can be merged:
- [x] Add tests (added basic tests, more advanced tests could be done in the future?)
- [x] Add lint for exhaustive if-let guard (comparable to normal if-let statements)
- [x] Fix clippy
However since this is a nightly feature maybe it's fine to land this and do those steps in follow-up PRs.
Thanks a lot `@matthewjasper` ❤️ for helping me with lowering to MIR! Would you be interested in reviewing this?
r? `@ghost` for now
Take into account negative impls in "trait item not found" suggestions
This removes the suggestion to implement a trait for a type when that type already has a negative implementation for the trait, and replaces it with a note to point out that the trait is explicitely unimplemented, as suggested by `@scottmcm.`
Helps with #79683.
r? `@scottmcm` do you want to review this?
Integer types have a `count_ones` method that end up calling
`intrinsics::ctpop`.
On some architectures, that intrinsic is translated as a corresponding
CPU instruction know as "popcount" or "popcnt".
This PR makes it so that searching for those names in rustdoc shows those methods.
CC https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/11/19/Rust-1.48.html#adding-search-aliases
bootstrap: include llvm-dwp in CI LLVM
Fixes#80086.
This PR includes the `llvm-dwp` tool in the CI LLVM (which rustc developers can download instead of building LLVM locally) - `llvm-dwp` is required by Split DWARF which landed in PR #77117.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
This commit includes the `llvm-dwp` tool in the CI LLVM (which rustc
developers can download instead of building LLVM locally) - `llvm-dwp`
is required by Split DWARF which landed in PR #77117.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
cg_llvm: split dwarf support
cc #34651
This PR adds initial support for Split DWARF to rustc, based on the implementation in Clang.
##### Current Status
This PR currently has functioning split-dwarf, running rustc with `-Zsplit-dwarf=split` when compiling a binary will produce a `dwp` alongside the binary, which contains the linked dwarf objects.
```shell-session
$ rustc -Cdebuginfo=2 -Zsplit-dwarf=split -C save-temps ./foo.rs
$ ls foo*
foo
foo.belfx9afw9cmv8.rcgu.dwo
foo.belfx9afw9cmv8.rcgu.o
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.0.rcgu.dwo
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.0.rcgu.o
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.1.rcgu.dwo
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.1.rcgu.o
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.2.rcgu.dwo
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.2.rcgu.o
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.3.rcgu.dwo
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.3.rcgu.o
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.4.rcgu.dwo
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.4.rcgu.o
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.5.rcgu.dwo
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.5.rcgu.o
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.6.rcgu.dwo
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.6.rcgu.o
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.7.rcgu.dwo
foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.7.rcgu.o
foo.dwp
foo.rs
$ readelf -wi foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.0.rcgu.o
# ...
Compilation Unit @ offset 0x90:
Length: 0x2c (32-bit)
Version: 4
Abbrev Offset: 0x5b
Pointer Size: 8
<0><9b>: Abbrev Number: 1 (DW_TAG_compile_unit)
<9c> DW_AT_stmt_list : 0xe8
<a0> DW_AT_comp_dir : (indirect string, offset: 0x13b): /home/david/Projects/rust/rust0
<a4> DW_AT_GNU_dwo_name: (indirect string, offset: 0x15b): foo.foo.7rcbfp3g-cgu.0.rcgu.dwo
<a8> DW_AT_GNU_dwo_id : 0x357472a2b032d7b9
<b0> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x0
<b8> DW_AT_ranges : 0x40
<bc> DW_AT_GNU_addr_base: 0x0
# ...
```
##### To-Do
I've opened this PR as a draft to get feedback and work out how we'd expect rustc to work when Split DWARF is requested. It might be easier to read the PR commit-by-commit.
- [ ] Add error when Split DWARF is requested on platforms where it doesn't make sense.
- [x] Determine whether or not there should be a single `dwo` output from rustc, or one per codegen-unit as exists currently.
- [x] Add tests.
- [x] Fix `single` mode - currently single mode doesn't change the invocation of `addPassesToEmitFile`, which is correct, but it also needs to change the split dwarf path provided to `createCompileUnit` and `createTargetMachine` so that it's just the final binary (currently it is still a non-existent `dwo` file).
r? `@nagisa`
cc `@michaelwoerister` `@eddyb` `@alexcrichton` `@rust-lang/wg-incr-comp`
llvm-dwp concatenates `DW_AT_comp_dir` with `DW_AT_GNU_dwo_name` (only
when `DW_AT_comp_dir` exists), which can result in it failing to find
the DWARF object files.
In earlier testing, `DW_AT_comp_dir` wasn't present in the final
object and the current directory was the output directory.
When running tests through compiletest, the working directory of the
compilation is different from output directory and that resulted in
`DW_AT_comp_dir` being in the object file (and set to the current
working directory, rather than the output directory), and
`DW_AT_GNU_dwo_name` being set to the full path (rather than just
the filename), so llvm-dwp was failing.
This commit changes the compilation directory provided to LLVM to match
the output directory, where DWARF objects are output; and ensures that
only the filename is used for `DW_AT_GNU_dwo_name`.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
This commit adds a Split DWARF compare mode to compiletest so that
debuginfo tests are also tested using Split DWARF in split mode (and
manually in single mode).
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
This commit makes minor changes to the cranelift backend so that it can
build given changes in cg_ssa for Split DWARF.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
This commit implements Split DWARF support, wiring up the flag (added in
earlier commits) to the modified FFI wrapper (also from earlier
commits).
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
`llvm-dwp` is required for linking the DWARF objects into DWARF packages
when using Split DWARF, especially given that rustc produces multiple
DWARF objects (one for each codegen unit).
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
This commit removes the `TargetMachineFactory` struct and adds a
`TargetMachineFactoryFn` type alias which is used everywhere that the
previous, long type was used.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
This commit changes some comments to documentation comments so that
they can be read on the generated rustdoc.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
This commit modifies the FFI bindings to LLVM required for Split DWARF
support in rustc. In particular:
- `addPassesToEmitFile`'s wrapper, `LLVMRustWriteOutputFile` now takes
a `DwoPath` `const char*`. When disabled, `nullptr` should be provided
which will preserve existing behaviour. When enabled, the path to the
`.dwo` file should be provided.
- `createCompileUnit`'s wrapper, `LLVMRustDIBuilderCreateCompileUnit`
now has two additional arguments, for the `DWOId` and to enable
`SplitDebugInlining`. `DWOId` should always be zero.
- `createTargetMachine`'s wrapper, `LLVMRustCreateTargetMachine` has an
additional argument which should be provided the path to the `.dwo`
when enabled.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
Don't look for blanket impls in intra-doc links
This never worked and has been causing severe performance problems.
Hopefully it will be re-landed at some point in the future when it
actually works, but in the meantime it makes no sense to have the code
around when it does nothing and actively makes rustdoc harder to use.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78761. Does *not* affect https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78800.
r? `@Manishearth`
cc `@seeplusplus`
See
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80045#issuecomment-745733339
Coverage statements are moved to the beginning of the BCB. This does
also affect what's counted before a panic, changing some results, but I
think these results may even be preferred? In any case, there are no
guarantees about what's counted when a panic occurs (by design).
MaybeUninit::copy/clone_from_slice
This PR adds 2 new methods to MaybeUninit under the feature of `maybe_uninit_write_slice`: `copy_from_slice` and `clone_from_slice`.
These are useful for initializing uninitialized buffers (such as the one returned by `Vec::spare_capacity_mut` for example) with initialized data.
The methods behave similarly to the methods on slices, but the destination is uninitialized and they return the destination slice as an initialized slice.
Refactor and fix `parse_prefix` on Windows
This PR is an extension of #78692 as well as a general refactor of `parse_prefix`:
**Fixes**:
There are two errors in the current implementation of `parse_prefix`:
Firstly, in the current implementation only `\` is recognized as a separator character in device namespace prefixes. This behavior is only correct for verbatim paths; `"\\.\C:/foo"` should be parsed as `"C:"` instead of `"C:/foo"`.
Secondly, the current implementation only handles single separator characters. In non-verbatim paths a series of separator characters should be recognized as a single boundary, e.g. the UNC path `"\\localhost\\\\\\C$\foo"` should be parsed as `"\\localhost\\\\\\C$"` and then `UNC(server: "localhost", share: "C$")`, but currently it is not parsed at all, because it starts being parsed as `\\localhost\` and then has an invalid empty share location.
Paths like `"\\.\C:/foo"` and `"\\localhost\\\\\\C$\foo"` are valid on Windows, they are equivalent to just `"C:\foo"`.
**Refactoring**:
All uses of `&[u8]` within `parse_prefix` are extracted to helper functions and`&OsStr` is used instead. This reduces the number of places unsafe is used:
- `get_first_two_components` is adapted to the more general `parse_next_component` and used in more places
- code for parsing drive prefixes is extracted to `parse_drive`
This never worked and has been causing severe performance problems.
Hopefully it will be re-landed at some point in the future when it
actually works, but in the meantime it makes no sense to have the code
around when it does nothing and actively makes rustdoc harder to use.
