These are all functions with a single callsite, where having a separate
function does nothing to help with readability. These changes make the
code a little shorter and easier to read.
Because that's now the only crate that uses it.
Moving stuff out of `rustc_middle` is always welcome.
I chose to use `impl crate::MirPass`/`impl crate::MirLint` (with
explicit `crate::`) everywhere because that's the only mention of
`MirPass`/`MirLint` used in all of these files. (Prior to this change,
`MirPass` was mostly imported via `use rustc_middle::mir::*` items.)
After deduplication the block conceptually belongs to multiple locations
in the source. Although these blocks are unreachable, in #123341 we did
come across a real side effect, an unreachable block that survives into
the compiled code can cause a debugger to set a breakpoint on the wrong
instruction. Erasing the source information ensures that a debugger will
never be misled into thinking that the unreachable block is worth setting
a breakpoint on, especially after #128627.
Technically we don't need to erase the source information if all the
deduplicated blocks have identical source information, but tracking
that seems like more effort than it's worth.
Rename `UninhabitedEnumBranching` to `UnreachableEnumBranching`
Per [#120268](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120268#discussion_r1517492060), I rename `UninhabitedEnumBranching` to `UnreachableEnumBranching` .
I solved some nits to add some comments.
I adjusted the workaround restrictions. This should be useful for `a <= b` and `if let Some/Ok(v)`. For enum with few variants, `early-tailduplication` should not cause compile time overhead.
r? RalfJung
detects redundant imports that can be eliminated.
for #117772 :
In order to facilitate review and modification, split the checking code and
removing redundant imports code into two PR.
Previously, mappings were attached to individual coverage statements in MIR.
That necessitated special handling in MIR optimizations to avoid deleting those
statements, since otherwise codegen would be unable to reassemble the original
list of mappings.
With this change, a function's list of mappings is now attached to its MIR
body, and survives intact even if individual statements are deleted by
optimizations.
Implement simple CopyPropagation based on SSA analysis
This PR extracts the "copy propagation" logic from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106285.
MIR may produce chains of assignment between locals, like `_x = move? _y`.
This PR attempts to remove such chains by unifying locals.
The current implementation is a bit overzealous in turning moves into copies, and in removing storage statements.
This patch adds a `MirPass` that tracks the number of back-edges and
function calls in the CFG, adds a new MIR instruction to increment a
counter every time they are encountered during Const Eval, and emit a
warning if a configured limit is breached.
Remove reachable coverage without counters to maintain invariant that
either there is no coverage at all or there is a live coverage counter
left that provides the function source hash.
The motivating example would be a following closure:
```rust
let f = |x: bool| {
debug_assert!(x);
};
```
Which, with span changes from #93967, with disabled debug assertions,
after the final CFG simplifications but before removal of dead blocks,
gives rise to MIR:
```rust
fn main::{closure#0}(_1: &[closure@a.rs:2:13: 2:22], _2: bool) -> () {
debug x => _2;
let mut _0: ();
bb0: {
Coverage::Expression(4294967295) = 1 - 2;
return;
}
...
}
```
To generate a function coverage we need at least one coverage counter,
so a coverage from unreachable blocks is retained only when some live
counters remain.
The previous implementation incorrectly retained unreachable coverage,
because it didn't account for the fact that those live counters can
belong to another function due to inlining.
Stabilize `-Z instrument-coverage` as `-C instrument-coverage`
(Tracking issue for `instrument-coverage`: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79121)
This PR stabilizes support for instrumentation-based code coverage, previously provided via the `-Z instrument-coverage` option. (Continue supporting `-Z instrument-coverage` for compatibility for now, but show a deprecation warning for it.)
Many, many people have tested this support, and there are numerous reports of it working as expected.
Move the documentation from the unstable book to stable rustc documentation. Update uses and documentation to use the `-C` option.
Addressing questions raised in the tracking issue:
> If/when stabilized, will the compiler flag be updated to -C instrument-coverage? (If so, the -Z variant could also be supported for some time, to ease migrations for existing users and scripts.)
This stabilization PR updates the option to `-C` and keeps the `-Z` variant to ease migration.
> The Rust coverage implementation depends on (and automatically turns on) -Z symbol-mangling-version=v0. Will stabilizing this feature depend on stabilizing v0 symbol-mangling first? If so, what is the current status and timeline?
This stabilization PR depends on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90128 , which stabilizes `-C symbol-mangling-version=v0` (but does not change the default symbol-mangling-version).
> The Rust coverage implementation implements the latest version of LLVM's Coverage Mapping Format (version 4), which forces a dependency on LLVM 11 or later. A compiler error is generated if attempting to compile with coverage, and using an older version of LLVM.
Given that LLVM 13 has now been released, requiring LLVM 11 for coverage support seems like a reasonable requirement. If people don't have at least LLVM 11, nothing else breaks; they just can't use coverage support. Given that coverage support currently requires a nightly compiler and LLVM 11 or newer, allowing it on a stable compiler built with LLVM 11 or newer seems like an improvement.
The [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79121) and the [issue label A-code-coverage](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/labels/A-code-coverage) link to a few open issues related to `instrument-coverage`, but none of them seem like showstoppers. All of them seem like improvements and refinements we can make after stabilization.
The original `-Z instrument-coverage` support went through a compiler-team MCP at https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/278 . Based on that, `@pnkfelix` suggested that this needed a stabilization PR and a compiler-team FCP.
