Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125263 (rust-lld: fallback to rustc's sysroot if there's no path to the linker in the target sysroot)
- #125345 (rustc_codegen_llvm: add support for writing summary bitcode)
- #125362 (Actually use TAIT instead of emulating it)
- #125412 (Don't suggest adding the unexpected cfgs to the build-script it-self)
- #125445 (Migrate `run-make/rustdoc-with-short-out-dir-option` to `rmake.rs`)
- #125452 (Cleanup check-cfg handling in core and std)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rustc_codegen_llvm: add support for writing summary bitcode
Typical uses of ThinLTO don't have any use for this as a standalone file, but distributed ThinLTO uses this to make the linker phase more efficient. With clang you'd do something like `clang -flto=thin -fthin-link-bitcode=foo.indexing.o -c foo.c` and then get both foo.o (full of bitcode) and foo.indexing.o (just the summary or index part of the bitcode). That's then usable by a two-stage linking process that's more friendly to distributed build systems like bazel, which is why I'm working on this area.
I talked some to `@teresajohnson` about naming in this area, as things seem to be a little confused between various blog posts and build systems. "bitcode index" and "bitcode summary" tend to be a little too ambiguous, and she tends to use "thin link bitcode" and "minimized bitcode" (which matches the descriptions in LLVM). Since the clang option is thin-link-bitcode, I went with that to try and not add a new spelling in the world.
Per `@dtolnay,` you can work around the lack of this by using `lld --thinlto-index-only` to do the indexing on regular .o files of bitcode, but that is a bit wasteful on actions when we already have all the information in rustc and could just write out the matching minimized bitcode. I didn't test that at all in our infrastructure, because by the time I learned that I already had this patch largely written.
If we don't do this, some versions of LLVM (at least 17, experimentally)
will double-emit some error messages, which is how I noticed this. Given
that it seems to be costing some extra work, let's only request the
summary bitcode production if we'll actually bother writing it down,
otherwise skip it.
Typical uses of ThinLTO don't have any use for this as a standalone
file, but distributed ThinLTO uses this to make the linker phase more
efficient. With clang you'd do something like `clang -flto=thin
-fthin-link-bitcode=foo.indexing.o -c foo.c` and then get both foo.o
(full of bitcode) and foo.indexing.o (just the summary or index part of
the bitcode). That's then usable by a two-stage linking process that's
more friendly to distributed build systems like bazel, which is why I'm
working on this area.
I talked some to @teresajohnson about naming in this area, as things
seem to be a little confused between various blog posts and build
systems. "bitcode index" and "bitcode summary" tend to be a little too
ambiguous, and she tends to use "thin link bitcode" and "minimized
bitcode" (which matches the descriptions in LLVM). Since the clang
option is thin-link-bitcode, I went with that to try and not add a new
spelling in the world.
Per @dtolnay, you can work around the lack of this by using `lld
--thinlto-index-only` to do the indexing on regular .o files of
bitcode, but that is a bit wasteful on actions when we already have all
the information in rustc and could just write out the matching minimized
bitcode. I didn't test that at all in our infrastructure, because by the
time I learned that I already had this patch largely written.
This code for recalculating `mcdc_bitmap_bytes` doesn't provide any benefit,
because its result won't have changed from the value in `FunctionCoverageInfo`
that was computed during the MIR instrumentation pass.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #124615 (coverage: Further simplify extraction of mapping info from MIR)
- #124778 (Fix parse error message for meta items)
- #124797 (Refactor float `Primitive`s to a separate `Float` type)
- #124888 (Migrate `run-make/rustdoc-output-path` to rmake)
- #124957 (Make `Ty::builtin_deref` just return a `Ty`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Refactor float `Primitive`s to a separate `Float` type
Now there are 4 of them, it makes sense to refactor `F16`, `F32`, `F64` and `F128` out of `Primitive` and into a separate `Float` type (like integers already are). This allows patterns like `F16 | F32 | F64 | F128` to be simplified into `Float(_)`, and is consistent with `ty::FloatTy`.
As a side effect, this PR also makes the `Ty::primitive_size` method work with `f16` and `f128`.
Tracking issue: #116909
`@rustbot` label +F-f16_and_f128
codegen: memmove/memset cannot be non-temporal
non-temporal memset is not a thing.
And for memmove, since the LLVM backend doesn't support this, surely we don't need it in the GCC backend.
LLVM has updated data layouts to specify `Fn32` on 64-bit ARM to avoid
C++ accidentally underaligning functions when trying to comply with
member function ABIs.
This should only affect Rust in cases where we had a similar bug (I
don't believe we have one), but our data layout must match to generate
code.
As a compatibility adaptatation, if LLVM is not version 19 yet, `Fn32`
gets voided from the data layout.
See llvm/llvm-project#90415
coverage: Clean up creation of MC/DC condition bitmaps
This PR improves the code for creating and initializing [MC/DC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_condition/decision_coverage) condition bitmap variables, as introduced by #123409 and modified by #124255.
- The condition bitmap variables are now created eagerly at the start of per-function codegen, via a new `init_coverage` method in `CoverageInfoBuilderMethods`. This avoids having to retroactively create the bitmaps while doing codegen for an individual coverage statement.
- As a result, we can now create and initialize those bitmaps using existing safe APIs, instead of having to perform our own unsafe call to `llvm::LLVMBuildAlloca`.
- This PR also tweaks the way we count the number of condition bitmaps needed, by tracking the total number of bitmaps needed (max depth + 1), instead of only tracking the maximum depth. This reduces the potential for subtle off-by-one confusion.
Stabilize the size of incr comp object file names
The current implementation does not produce stable-length paths, and we create the paths in a way that makes our allocation behavior is nondeterministic. I think `@eddyb` fixed a number of other cases like this in the past, and this PR fixes another one. Whether that actually matters I have no idea, but we still have bimodal behavior in rustc-perf and the non-uniformity in `find` and `ls` was bothering me.
I've also removed the truncation of the mangled CGU names. Before this PR incr comp paths look like this:
```
target/debug/incremental/scratch-38izrrq90cex7/s-gux6gz0ow8-1ph76gg-ewe1xj434l26w9up5bedsojpd/261xgo1oqnd90ry5.o
```
And after, they look like this:
```
target/debug/incremental/scratch-035omutqbfkbw/s-gux6borni0-16r3v1j-6n64tmwqzchtgqzwwim5amuga/55v2re42sztc8je9bva6g8ft3.o
```
On the one hand, I'm sure this will break some people's builds because they're on Windows and only a few bytes from the path length limit. But if we're that seriously worried about the length of our file names, I have some other ideas on how to make them smaller. And last time I deleted some hash truncations from the compiler, there was a huge drop in the number if incremental compilation ICEs that were reported: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110367https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110367
---
Upon further reading, this PR actually fixes a bug. This comment says the CGU names are supposed to be a fixed-length hash, and before this PR they aren't: ca7d34efa9/compiler/rustc_monomorphize/src/partitioning.rs (L445-L448)
Because this now always takes place at the start of the function, we can just
use the normal `alloca` method and then initialize each bitmap immediately.
This patch also moves bitmap setup out of the `mcdc_parameters` method, because
there is no longer any particular reason for it to be there.
Remove many `#[macro_use] extern crate foo` items
This requires the addition of more `use` items, which often make the code more verbose. But they also make the code easier to read, because `#[macro_use]` obscures where macros are defined.
r? `@fee1-dead`
MCDC coverage: support nested decision coverage
#123409 provided the initial MCDC coverage implementation.
As referenced in #124144, it does not currently support "nested" decisions, like the following example :
```rust
fn nested_if_in_condition(a: bool, b: bool, c: bool) {
if a && if b || c { true } else { false } {
say("yes");
} else {
say("no");
}
}
```
Note that there is an if-expression (`if b || c ...`) embedded inside a boolean expression in the decision of an outer if-expression.
This PR proposes a workaround for this cases, by introducing a Decision context stack, and by handing several `temporary condition bitmaps` instead of just one.
When instrumenting boolean expressions, if the current node is a leaf condition (i.e. not a `||`/`&&` logical operator nor a `!` not operator), we insert a new decision context, such that if there are more boolean expressions inside the condition, they are handled as separate expressions.
On the codegen LLVM side, we allocate as many `temp_cond_bitmap`s as necessary to handle the maximum encountered decision depth.
Add decision_depth field to TVBitmapUpdate/CondBitmapUpdate statements
Add decision_depth field to BcbMappingKinds MCDCBranch and MCDCDecision
Add decision_depth field to MCDCBranchSpan and MCDCDecisionSpan
Set writable and dead_on_unwind attributes for sret arguments
Set the `writable` and `dead_on_unwind` attributes for `sret` arguments. This allows call slot optimization to remove more memcpy's.
See https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#parameter-attributes for the specification of these attributes. In short, the statement we're making here is that:
* The return slot is writable.
* The return slot will not be read if the function unwinds.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90595.
Stop using LLVM struct types for alloca
The alloca type has no semantic meaning, only the size (and alignment, but we specify it explicitly) matter. Using `[N x i8]` is a more direct way to specify that we want `N` bytes, and avoids relying on LLVM's struct layout. It is likely that a future LLVM version will change to an untyped alloca representation.
Split out from #121577.
r? `@ghost`
Dellvmize some intrinsics (use `u32` instead of `Self` in some integer intrinsics)
This implements https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/693 minus what was implemented in #123226.
Note: I decided to _not_ change `shl`/... builder methods, as it just doesn't seem worth it.
r? ``@scottmcm``
[cleanup] [llvm backend] Prevent creating the same `Instance::mono` multiple times
Just a little thing I came across while going through the code.
r? ```@oli-obk```
