Treat Drop as a rmw operation
Previously, a Drop terminator was considered a move in MIR. This commit changes the behavior to only treat Drop as a mutable access to the dropped place.
In order for this change to be correct, we need to guarantee that
1. A dropped value won't be used again
2. Places that appear in a drop won't be used again before a
subsequent initialization.
We can ensure this to be correct at MIR construction because Drop will only be emitted when a variable goes out of scope, thus having:
* (1) as there is no way of reaching the old value. drop-elaboration
will also remove any uninitialized drop.
* (2) as the place can't be named following the end of the scope.
However, the initialization status, previously tracked by moves, should also be tied to the execution of a Drop, hence the additional logic in the dataflow analyses.
From discussion in [this thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/233931-t-compiler.2Fmajor-changes/topic/.60DROP.60.20to.20.60DROP_IF.60.20compiler-team.23558), originating from https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/558.
See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104488#discussion_r1085556010
Previously, a Drop terminator was considered a move in MIR.
This commit changes the behavior to only treat Drop as a mutable
access to the dropped place.
In order for this change to be correct, we need to guarantee that
a) A dropped value won't be used again
b) Places that appear in a drop won't be used again before a
subsequent initialization.
We can ensure this to be correct at MIR construction because Drop
will only be emitted when a variable goes out of scope,
thus having:
(a) as there is no way of reaching the old value. drop-elaboration
will also remove any uninitialized drop.
(b) as the place can't be named following the end of the scope.
However, the initialization status, previously tracked by moves,
should also be tied to the execution of a Drop, hence the
additional logic in the dataflow analyses.
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 `NullOp::Box`
Follow up of #89030 and MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#460.
~1 month later nothing seems to be broken, apart from a small regression that #89332 (1aac85bb716c09304b313d69d30d74fe7e8e1a8e) shows could be regained by remvoing the diverging path, so it shall be safe to continue and remove `NullOp::Box` completely.
r? `@jonas-schievink`
`@rustbot` label T-compiler
