Implement jump threading MIR opt
This pass is an attempt to generalize `ConstGoto` and `SeparateConstSwitch` passes into a more complete jump threading pass.
This pass is rather heavy, as it performs a truncated backwards DFS on MIR starting from each `SwitchInt` terminator. This backwards DFS remains very limited, as it only walks through `Goto` terminators.
It is build to support constants and discriminants, and a propagating through a very limited set of operations.
The pass successfully manages to disentangle the `Some(x?)` use case and the DFA use case. It still needs a few tests before being ready.
Eliminate rustc_attrs::builtin::handle_errors in favor of emitting errors directly
Suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116773#pullrequestreview-1691411257.
This `handle_errors` function is originally from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/34531, in which it was useful because it allowed error messages and error codes (`E0542`) for multiple occurrences of the same error to be centralized in one place. For example rather than repeating this diagnostic in 2 places:
```rust
span_err!(diagnostic, attr.span, E0542, "missing 'since'");
```
one could repeat this instead:
```rust
handle_errors(diagnostic, attr.span, AttrError::MissingSince);
```
ensuring that all "missing 'since'" errors always remained consistent in message and error code.
Over time as error messages and error codes got factored to fluent diagnostics (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100836), this rationale no longer applies. The new code has the same benefit while being less verbose (+73, -128).
```rust
sess.emit_err(session_diagnostics::MissingSince { span: attr.span });
```
r? `@cjgillot`
coverage: Add UI tests for values accepted by `-Cinstrument-coverage`
I wanted to clean up the code in `parse_instrument_coverage`, but it occurred to me that we currently don't have any UI tests for the various stable and unstable values supported by this flag.
---
Normally it might be overkill to individually test all the different variants of `on`/`off`, but in this case the parsing of those values is mixed in with some other custom code, so I think it's worthwhile being thorough.
Rewrite gdb pretty-printer registration
Currently, the Rust pretty-printers are registered in gdb using the uninformative name "lookup":
(gdb) info pretty-printer
global pretty-printers:
[...]
objfile /home/tromey/[...]
lookup
It's nicer for users if the top-level registration is given a clear name. Additionally, gdb lets users individually enable and disable specific printers, provided they are registered correctly.
This patch implements both these ideas. Now the output looks like:
(gdb) info pretty-printer
global pretty-printers:
[...]
objfile /home/tromey/[...]
rust
StdArc
StdBTreeMap
StdBTreeSet
StdCell
StdHashMap
StdHashSet
StdNonZeroNumber
StdOsString
StdRc
StdRef
StdRefCell
StdRefMut
StdSlice
StdStr
StdString
StdVec
StdVecDeque
Location-insensitive polonius: consider a loan escaping if an SCC has member constraints applied only
The location-insensitive analysis considered loans to escape if there were member constraints, which makes *some* sense for scopes and matches the scopes that NLL computes on all the tests.
However, polonius and NLLs differ on the fuzzed case #116657, where an SCC has member constraints but no applied ones (and is kinda surprising). The existing UI tests with member constraints impacting scopes all have some constraint applied.
This PR changes the location-insensitive analysis to consider a loan to escape if there are applied member constraints, and for extra paranoia/insurance via fuzzing and crater: actually checks the constraint's min choice is indeed a universal region as we expect. (This could be turned into a `debug_assert` and early return as a slight optimization after these periods of verification)
The 4 UI tests where member constraints are meaningful for computing scopes still pass obviously, and this also fixes#116657.
r? `@matthewjasper`
Avoid having `rustc_smir` depend on `rustc_interface` or `rustc_driver`
This is done by moving all the logic into a macro that performs the entire "run" operation in one go.
This makes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116806 obsolete
as a follow up we should make the macro usable without manually having to write
```rust
#[macro_use]
extern crate rustc_smir;
extern crate stable_mir;
extern crate rustc_driver;
extern crate rustc_interface;
use rustc_smir::rustc_internal;
```
in every crate that uses the macro.
r? `@spastorino`
Avoid a `track_errors` by bubbling up most errors from `check_well_formed`
I believe `track_errors` is mostly papering over issues that a sufficiently convoluted query graph can hit. I made this change, while the actual change I want to do is to stop bailing out early on errors, and instead use this new `ErrorGuaranteed` to invoke `check_well_formed` for individual items before doing all the `typeck` logic on them.
This works towards resolving https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97477 and various other ICEs, as well as allowing us to use parallel rustc more (which is currently rather limited/bottlenecked due to the very sequential nature in which we do `rustc_hir_analysis::check_crate`)
cc `@SparrowLii` `@Zoxc` for the new `try_par_for_each_in` function
x.ps1: remove the check for Python from Windows Store
When installing Python from the Windows Store, a copy of `python.exe` is installed inder the Microsoft directory in the user's local AppData directory. Currently, `x.ps1` checks for this file, because by default running `python.exe` opens a link to the Microsoft Store rather than running Python.
Once the user installs Python, however, this contains a valid interpreter. Unfortuantely, `x.ps1` can't tell the difference between a legitimate Python install and the stub.
Remove the check, as it makes it impossible to use the official version from Microsoft once it has been installed.
This resolves#117067
add a `csky-unknown-linux-gnuabiv2hf` target
This is the rustc side changes to support csky based Linux target(`csky-unknown-linux-gnuabiv2`).
Tier 3 policy:
> A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
I pledge to do my best maintaining it.
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important even for a tier 3 target.
This `csky` section is the arch name and the `unknown-linux` section is the same as other linux target, and `gnuabiv2` is from the cross-compile toolchain of `gcc`. the `hf`means hardfloat.
> Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if the name of the target makes people extremely likely to form incorrect beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to disambiguate it.
I think the explanation in platform support doc is enough to make this aspect clear.
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.
It's using open source tools only.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
No new license
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Understood.
> The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements.
There are no new dependencies/features required.
> Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries. Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications built for the target, but those libraries must not be required for code generation for the target; cross-compilation to the target must not require such libraries at all. For instance, rustc built for the target may depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library, but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
As previously said it's using open source tools only.
> "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous" legal/licensing terms include but are not limited to: non-disclosure requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms, requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its developers or users.
There are no such terms present/
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.
I'm not the reviewer here.
> This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
I'm not the reviewer here.
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
It supports for std
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
I have added the documentation, and I think it's clear.
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via ``@)`` to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.
Understood.
> Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications.
Understood.
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target.
I believe I didn't break any other target.
> In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
I think there are no such problems in this PR.
coverage: Emit the filenames section before encoding per-function mappings
When embedding coverage information in LLVM IR (and ultimately in the resulting binary), there are two main things that each CGU needs to emit:
- A single `__llvm_covmap` record containing a coverage header, which mostly consists of a list of filenames used by the CGU's coverage mappings.
- Several `__llvm_covfun` records, one for each instrumented function, each of which contains the hash of the list of filenames in the header.
There is a kind of loose cyclic dependency between the two: we need the hash of the file table before we can emit the covfun records, but we need to traverse all of the instrumented functions in order to build the file table.
The existing code works by processing the individual functions first. It lazily adds filenames to the file table, and stores the mostly-complete function records in a temporary list. After this it hashes the file table, emits the header (containing the file table), and then uses the hash to emit all of the function records.
This PR reverses that order: first we traverse all of the functions (without trying to prepare their function records) to build a *complete* file table, and then emit it immediately. At this point we have the file table hash, so we can then proceed to build and emit all of the function records, without needing to store them in an intermediate list.
---
Along the way, this PR makes some necessary changes that are also worthwhile in their own right:
- We split `FunctionCoverage` into distinct collector/finished phases, which neatly avoids some borrow-checker hassles when extracting a function's final expression/mapping data.
- We avoid having to re-sort a function's mappings when preparing the list of filenames that it uses.
