rustc: Implement incremental "fat" LTO
Currently the compiler will produce an error if both incremental
compilation and full fat LTO is requested. With recent changes and the
advent of incremental ThinLTO, however, all the hard work is already
done for us and it's actually not too bad to remove this error!
This commit updates the codegen backend to allow incremental full fat
LTO. The semantics are that the input modules to LTO are all produce
incrementally, but the final LTO step is always done unconditionally
regardless of whether the inputs changed or not. The only real
incremental win we could have here is if zero of the input modules
changed, but that's so rare it's unlikely to be worthwhile to implement
such a code path.
cc #57968
cc rust-lang/cargo#6643
Cosmetic improvements to doc comments
This has been factored out from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/58036 to only include changes to documentation comments (throughout the rustc codebase).
r? @steveklabnik
Once you're happy with this, maybe we could get it through with r=1, so it doesn't constantly get invalidated? (I'm not sure this will be an issue, but just in case...) Anyway, thanks for your advice so far!
Currently the compiler will produce an error if both incremental
compilation and full fat LTO is requested. With recent changes and the
advent of incremental ThinLTO, however, all the hard work is already
done for us and it's actually not too bad to remove this error!
This commit updates the codegen backend to allow incremental full fat
LTO. The semantics are that the input modules to LTO are all produce
incrementally, but the final LTO step is always done unconditionally
regardless of whether the inputs changed or not. The only real
incremental win we could have here is if zero of the input modules
changed, but that's so rare it's unlikely to be worthwhile to implement
such a code path.
cc #57968
cc rust-lang/cargo#6643
"trampolines", or "aliases (the default)) to allow targets to opt out of
the MergeFunctions LLVM pass. Also add a corresponding -Z option with
the same name and values.
This works around: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57356
Motivation:
Basically, the problem is that the MergeFunctions pass, which rustc
currently enables by default at -O2 and -O3, and `extern "ptx-kernel"`
functions (specific to the NVPTX target) are currently not compatible
with each other. If the MergeFunctions pass is allowed to run, rustc can
generate invalid PTX assembly (i.e. a PTX file that is not accepted by
the native PTX assembler ptxas). Therefore we would like a way to opt
out of the MergeFunctions pass, which is what our target option does.
Related work:
The current behavior of rustc is to enable MergeFunctions at -O2 and -O3,
and also to enable the use of function aliases within MergeFunctions.
MergeFunctions both with and without function aliases is incompatible with
the NVPTX target.
clang's "solution" is to have a "-fmerge-functions" flag that opts in to
the MergeFunctions pass, but it is not enabled by default.
Instead of only determining whether some form of LTO is necessary,
determine whether thin, fat or no LTO is necessary. I've rewritten
the conditions in a way that I think is more obvious, i.e. specified
LTO type + additional preconditions.
