Most modules have such a blank line, but some don't. Inserting the blank
line makes it clearer that the `//!` comments are describing the entire
module, rather than the `use` declaration(s) that immediately follows.
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.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #124615 (coverage: Further simplify extraction of mapping info from MIR)
- #124778 (Fix parse error message for meta items)
- #124797 (Refactor float `Primitive`s to a separate `Float` type)
- #124888 (Migrate `run-make/rustdoc-output-path` to rmake)
- #124957 (Make `Ty::builtin_deref` just return a `Ty`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Refactor float `Primitive`s to a separate `Float` type
Now there are 4 of them, it makes sense to refactor `F16`, `F32`, `F64` and `F128` out of `Primitive` and into a separate `Float` type (like integers already are). This allows patterns like `F16 | F32 | F64 | F128` to be simplified into `Float(_)`, and is consistent with `ty::FloatTy`.
As a side effect, this PR also makes the `Ty::primitive_size` method work with `f16` and `f128`.
Tracking issue: #116909
`@rustbot` label +F-f16_and_f128
Stabilize the size of incr comp object file names
The current implementation does not produce stable-length paths, and we create the paths in a way that makes our allocation behavior is nondeterministic. I think `@eddyb` fixed a number of other cases like this in the past, and this PR fixes another one. Whether that actually matters I have no idea, but we still have bimodal behavior in rustc-perf and the non-uniformity in `find` and `ls` was bothering me.
I've also removed the truncation of the mangled CGU names. Before this PR incr comp paths look like this:
```
target/debug/incremental/scratch-38izrrq90cex7/s-gux6gz0ow8-1ph76gg-ewe1xj434l26w9up5bedsojpd/261xgo1oqnd90ry5.o
```
And after, they look like this:
```
target/debug/incremental/scratch-035omutqbfkbw/s-gux6borni0-16r3v1j-6n64tmwqzchtgqzwwim5amuga/55v2re42sztc8je9bva6g8ft3.o
```
On the one hand, I'm sure this will break some people's builds because they're on Windows and only a few bytes from the path length limit. But if we're that seriously worried about the length of our file names, I have some other ideas on how to make them smaller. And last time I deleted some hash truncations from the compiler, there was a huge drop in the number if incremental compilation ICEs that were reported: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110367https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110367
---
Upon further reading, this PR actually fixes a bug. This comment says the CGU names are supposed to be a fixed-length hash, and before this PR they aren't: ca7d34efa9/compiler/rustc_monomorphize/src/partitioning.rs (L445-L448)
Use `tcx.types.unit` instead of `Ty::new_unit(tcx)`
I don't think there is any need for the function, given that we can just access the `.types`, similarly to all other primitives?
Stop using LLVM struct types for alloca
The alloca type has no semantic meaning, only the size (and alignment, but we specify it explicitly) matter. Using `[N x i8]` is a more direct way to specify that we want `N` bytes, and avoids relying on LLVM's struct layout. It is likely that a future LLVM version will change to an untyped alloca representation.
Split out from #121577.
r? `@ghost`
Dellvmize some intrinsics (use `u32` instead of `Self` in some integer intrinsics)
This implements https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/693 minus what was implemented in #123226.
Note: I decided to _not_ change `shl`/... builder methods, as it just doesn't seem worth it.
r? ``@scottmcm``
