Inlining creates additional statements to be executed along the return
edge: an assignment to the destination, storage end for temporaries.
Previously those statements where inserted directly into a call target,
but this is incorrect when the target has other predecessors.
Avoid the issue by creating a new dedicated block for those statements.
When the block happens to be redundant it will be removed by CFG
simplification that follows inlining.
Fixes#117355
In general it is not correct to inline a callee with a target features
that are subset of the callee. Require target features to match exactly
during inlining.
The exact match could be potentially relaxed, but this would require
identifying specific feature that are allowed to differ, those that need
to match, and those that can be present in caller but not in callee.
This resolves MIR part of #116573. For other concerns with respect to
the previous implementation also see areInlineCompatible in LLVM.
This fixes the changes brought to codegen tests when effect params are
added to libcore, by not attempting to monomorphize functions that get
the host param by being `const fn`.
Only inline functions that are considered eligible for inlining
by the reachability pass.
This constraint was previously indirectly enforced by only exporting MIR
of eligible functions, but that approach doesn't work with
-Zalways-encode-mir enabled.
Unify terminology used in unwind action and terminator, and reflect
the fact that a nounwind panic is triggered instead of an immediate
abort is triggered for this terminator.
And while doing the updates for that, also uses `FieldIdx` in `ProjectionKind::Field` and `TypeckResults::field_indices`.
There's more places that could use it (like `rustc_const_eval` and `LayoutS`), but I tried to keep this PR from exploding to *even more* places.
Part 2/? of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/606
Move `mir::Field` → `abi::FieldIdx`
The first PR for https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/606
This is just the move-and-rename, because it's plenty big already. Future PRs will start using `FieldIdx` more broadly, and concomitantly removing `FieldIdx::new`s.
The first PR for https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/606
This is just the move-and-rename, because it's plenty big-and-bitrotty already. Future PRs will start using `FieldIdx` more broadly, and concomitantly removing `FieldIdx::new`s.
