coverage: Initial support for branch coverage instrumentation
(This is a review-ready version of the changes that were drafted in #118305.)
This PR adds support for branch coverage instrumentation, gated behind the unstable flag value `-Zcoverage-options=branch`. (Coverage instrumentation must also be enabled with `-Cinstrument-coverage`.)
During THIR-to-MIR lowering (MIR building), if branch coverage is enabled, we collect additional information about branch conditions and their corresponding then/else blocks. We inject special marker statements into those blocks, so that the `InstrumentCoverage` MIR pass can reliably identify them even after the initially-built MIR has been simplified and renumbered.
The rest of the changes are mostly just plumbing needed to gather up the information that was collected during MIR building, and include it in the coverage metadata that we embed in the final binary.
Note that `llvm-cov show` doesn't print branch coverage information in its source views by default; that needs to be explicitly enabled with `--show-branches=count` or similar.
---
The current implementation doesn't have any support for instrumenting `if let` or let-chains. I think it's still useful without that, and adding it would be non-trivial, so I'm happy to leave that for future work.
match lowering: don't collect test alternatives ahead of time
I'm very happy with this one. Before this, when sorting candidates into the possible test branches, we manually computed `usize` indices to determine in which branch each candidate goes. To make this work we had a first pass that collected the possible alternatives we'd have to deal with, and a second pass that actually sorts the candidates.
In this PR, I replace `usize` indices with a dedicated enum. This makes `sort_candidates` easier to follow, and we don't need the first pass anymore.
r? ``@matthewjasper``
pattern analysis: Store field indices in `DeconstructedPat` to avoid virtual wildcards
For a pattern like `Struct { field3: true, .. }`, in pattern analysis we represent it as `Struct { field1: _, field2: _, field3: true, field4: _ }`. This PR makes it so we store `Struct { field3: true, .. }` instead. This means we never have to create fake `_` patterns during lowering.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Clarity improvements to `DropTree`
These changes are based on some points of confusion I had when initially trying to understand this code.
The only “functional” change is an additional assertion in `<ExitScopes as DropTreeBuilder>::link_entry_point`, checking that the dummy terminator is `TerminatorKind::UnwindResume` as expected.
match lowering: define a convenient struct
Small refactor PR: `bindings` and `ascriptions` always come together so I made a struct for them. I'll have one or two fields to add to it in a later PR as well.
Add asm goto support to `asm!`
Tracking issue: #119364
This PR implements asm-goto support, using the syntax described in "future possibilities" section of [RFC2873](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2873-inline-asm.html#asm-goto).
Currently I have only implemented the `label` part, not the `fallthrough` part (i.e. fallthrough is implicit). This doesn't reduce the expressive though, since you can use label-break to get arbitrary control flow or simply set a value and rely on jump threading optimisation to get the desired control flow. I can add that later if deemed necessary.
r? ``@Amanieu``
cc ``@ojeda``
This method would previously take a target scope, and then verify that it
was equal to the scope on top of the if-then scope stack.
In practice, this means that callers have to go out of their way to pass around
redundant scope information that's already on the if-then stack.
So it's easier to just retrieve the correct scope directly from the if-then
stack, and simplify the other code that was passing it around.
This allows us to use real field names instead of tuple element numbers.
Renaming `previous_drops` to `existing_drops_map` clarifies that "previous" was
unrelated to drop order.
This makes it easier to see that the call to `in_scope` returns both the then
block and the else block. The rather confusing `unpack!` step is confined to
its own separate line.
(This patch reindents several lines, so using "ignore whitespace" is
recommended in order to focus on the actual changes.)
Extract an arguments struct for `Builder::then_else_break`
Most of this method's arguments are usually or always forwarded as-is to recursive invocations.
Wrapping them in a dedicated struct allows us to document each struct field, and lets us use struct-update syntax to indicate which arguments are being modified when making a recursive call.
---
While trying to understand the lowering of `if` expressions, I found it difficult to keep track of the half-dozen arguments passed through to every call to `then_else_break`. I tried switching over to an arguments struct, and I found that it really helps to make sense of what each argument does, and how each call is modifying the arguments.
I have some further ideas for how to streamline these recursive calls, but I've kept those out of this PR so that it's a pure refactoring with no behavioural changes.
Most of this method's arguments are usually or always forwarded as-is to
recursive invocations.
Wrapping them in a dedicated struct allows us to document each struct field,
and lets us use struct-update syntax to indicate which arguments are being
modified when making a recursive call.
Add new `pattern_complexity` attribute to add possibility to limit and check recursion in pattern matching
Needed for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/9528.
This PR adds a new attribute only available when running rust testsuite called `pattern_complexity` which allows to set the maximum recursion for the pattern matching. It is quite useful to ensure the complexity doesn't grow, like in `tests/ui/pattern/usefulness/issue-118437-exponential-time-on-diagonal-match.rs`.
r? `@Nadrieril`
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #120761 (Add initial support for DataFlowSanitizer)
- #121622 (Preserve same vtable pointer when cloning raw waker, to fix Waker::will_wake)
- #121716 (match lowering: Lower bindings in a predictable order)
- #121731 (Now that inlining, mir validation and const eval all use reveal-all, we won't be constraining hidden types here anymore)
- #121841 (`f16` and `f128` step 2: intrinsics)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
match lowering: Lower bindings in a predictable order
After the recent refactorings, we can now lower bindings in a truly predictable order. The order in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120214 was an improvement but not very clear. With this PR, we lower bindings from left to right, with the special case that `x @ pat` is traversed as `pat @ x` (i.e. `x` is lowered after any bindings in `pat`).
This description only applies in the absence of or-patterns. Or-patterns make everything complicated, because the binding place depends on the subpattern. Until I have a better idea I leave them to be handled in whatever weird order arises from today's code.
r? `@matthewjasper`
Before, the SwitchInt cases were computed in two passes: if the first
pass accepted e.g. 0..=5 and then 1, the second pass would not accept
0..=5 anymore because 1 would be listed in the SwitchInt options.
Now there's a single pass, so if we sort 0..=5 we must take care to not
sort a subsequent 1.
The ordinary lowering of `thir::ExprKind::Let` is unreachable
After desugaring, `let` expressions should only appear inside `if` expressions or `match` guards, possibly nested within a let-chain. In both cases they are specifically handled by the lowerings of those expressions, so this case is currently unreachable.
---
Context: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/182449-t-compiler.2Fhelp/topic/Lowering.20of.20.60thir.3A.3AExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.20is.20unreachable
My conclusions are partly based on the observation that stubbing out this match arm doesn't cause any test failures. So either this really is unreachable, or it can be reached in some obscure circumstances that our test suite doesn't cover.
If we end up needing this code (or something like it) for an implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3573, it should be easy enough to pull it back out of version control history.
I looked into having the `if`/`match` lowerings call back into `expr_into_dest`, but from what I can tell that won't work well, because there are extra scoping considerations that require some awareness of the enclosing if/match.
r? ```@Nadrieril```
After desugaring, `let` expressions should only appear inside `if` expressions
or `match` guards, possibly nested within a let-chain. In both cases they are
specifically handled by the lowerings of those expressions, so this case is
currently unreachable.
match lowering: pre-simplify or-patterns too
This is the final part of my work to simplify match pairs early: now we do it for or-patterns too. This makes it possible to collect fake borrows separately from the main match lowering algorithm. That'll enable more simplifications of or-pattern handling.
Note: I was tempted to have `Candidate` contain a `FlatPat`, but there are so many places that use `candidate.match_pairs` etc directly that I chose not to.
r? `@matthewjasper`
match lowering: Separate the `bool` case from other integers in `TestKind`
`TestKind::SwitchInt` had a special case for `bool` essentially everywhere it's used, so I made `TestKind::If` to handle the bool case on its own.
r? `@matthewjasper`
match lowering: Remove hacky branch in sort_candidate
Reusing `self.test()` there wasn't actually pulling a lot of weight. In particular the `TestKind::Len` cases were all already correctly handled.
r? `@matthewjasper`
Make the success arms of `if lhs || rhs` meet up in a separate block
Extracted from #118305, where this is necessary to avoid introducing a bug when injecting marker statements into the then/else arms.
---
In the previous code (#111752), the success block of `lhs` would jump directly to the success block of `rhs`. However, `rhs_success_block` could already contain statements that are specific to the RHS, and the direct goto causes them to be executed in the LHS success path as well.
This patch therefore creates a fresh block that the LHS and RHS success blocks can both jump to.
---
I think the reason we currently get away with this is that `rhs_success_block` usually doesn't contain anything other than StorageDead statements for locals used by the RHS, and those statements don't seem to cause problems in the LHS success path (which never makes those locals live).
But if we start adding meaningful statements for branch coverage (or MC/DC coverage), it's important to keep the LHS and RHS blocks separate.
Add stubs in IR and ABI for `f16` and `f128`
This is the very first step toward the changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114607 and the [`f16` and `f128` RFC](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3453-f16-and-f128.html). It adds the types to `rustc_type_ir::FloatTy` and `rustc_abi::Primitive`, and just propagates those out as `unimplemented!` stubs where necessary.
These types do not parse yet so there is no feature gate, and it should be okay to use `unimplemented!`.
The next steps will probably be AST support with parsing and the feature gate.
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@Nilstrieb` suggested breaking the PR up in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120645#issuecomment-1925900572
Skip unnecessary comparison with half-open range patterns
This is the last remaining detail in the implementation of half-open range patterns. Until now, a half-open range pattern like `10..` was converted to `10..T::MAX` before lowering to MIR, which generated an extra pointless comparison. With this PR we don't generate it.
In the previous code, the success block of `lhs` would jump directly to the
success block of `rhs`. However, `rhs_success_block` could already contain
statements that are specific to the RHS, and the direct goto causes them to be
executed in the LHS success path as well.
This patch therefore creates a fresh block that the LHS and RHS success blocks
can both jump to.
