Trim and tidy includes in `rustc_llvm`
These includes tend to accumulate over time, and are usually only removed when something breaks in a new LLVM version, so it's nice to clean them up manually once in a while.
General strategy used for this PR:
- Remove all includes from `LLVMWrapper.h` that aren't needed by the header itself, transplanting them to individual source files as necessary.
- For each source file, temporarily remove each include if doing so doesn't cause a compile error.
- If a “required” include looks like it shouldn't be needed, try replacing it with its sub-includes, then trim that list.
- After doing all of the above, go back and re-add any removed include if the file does actually use things defined in that header, even if the header happens to also be included by something else.
Rollup of 15 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #129329 (Implement `From<&mut {slice}>` for `Box/Rc/Arc<{slice}>`)
- #131377 (Add LowerExp and UpperExp implementations to NonZero)
- #132393 (Docs: added brief colon explanation)
- #132437 (coverage: Regression test for inlining into an uninstrumented crate)
- #132499 (unicode_data.rs: show command for generating file)
- #132503 (better test for const HashMap; remove const_hash leftovers)
- #132511 (stabilize const_arguments_as_str)
- #132520 (NFC add known bug nr to test)
- #132522 (make codegen help output more consistent)
- #132523 (Added regression test for generics index out of bounds)
- #132528 (Use `*_opt` typeck results fns to not ICE in fallback suggestion)
- #132537 (PassWrapper: adapt for llvm/llvm-project@5445edb5d)
- #132540 (Do not format generic consts)
- #132543 (add and update some crashtests)
- #132550 (compiler: Continue introducing rustc_abi to the compiler)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Port most of `--print=target-cpus` to Rust
The logic and formatting needed by `--print=target-cpus` has historically been carried out in C++ code. Originally it used `printf` to write directly to the console, but later it switched over to writing to a `std::ostringstream` and then passing its buffer to a callback function pointer.
This PR replaces that C++ code with a very simple function that writes a list of CPU names to a `&RustString`, with the rest of the logic and formatting being handled by ordinary safe Rust code.
PassWrapper: adapt for llvm/llvm-project@5445edb5d
As with ab5583ed1e, we had been explicitly passing defaults whose type have changed. Rather than do an ifdef, we simply rely on the defaults.
````@rustbot```` label: +llvm-main
PassWrapper: adapt for llvm/llvm-project@b01e2a8b56
A boolean turned into an enum. None matches the old behavior of false, so we pass that.
`@rustbot` label: +llvm-main
As with ab5583ed1e, we had been explicitly
passing defaults whose type have changed. Rather than do an ifdef, we
simply rely on the defaults.
@rustbot label: +llvm-main
We don't see a reason to explicitly pass the default here, so just use
the default instead of explicitly passing it and needing an ifdef.
@rustbot label: +llvm-main
rustc_llvm: adapt to flattened CLI args in LLVM
This changed in
llvm/llvm-project@e190d074a0. I decided to stick with more duplication between the ifdef blocks to make the code easier to read for the next two years before we can plausibly drop LLVM 19.
`@rustbot` label: +llvm-main
try-job: x86_64-msvc
This changed in
llvm/llvm-project@e190d074a0. I decided to
stick with more duplication between the ifdef blocks to make the code
easier to read for the next two years before we can plausibly drop LLVM
19.
@rustbot label: +llvm-main
llvm-wrapper: adapt for LLVM API changes
No functional changes intended.
Updates the wrapper for 21eddfac3d.
````@rustbot```` label: +llvm-main
r? ````@nikic````
Since this codegen flag now only controls LLVM-generated comments rather than
all assembly comments, make the name more accurate (and also match Clang).
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.
C++ style guides I am aware of recommend specifically preferring = syntax
for any classes with fairly obvious constructors[^0] that do not perform
any complicated logic in their constructor. I contend that all constructors
that the `rustc_llvm` code uses qualify. This has only become more common
since C++ 17 guaranteed many cases of copy initialization elision.
The other detail is that I tried to ask another contributor with
infinitely more C++ experience than me (i.e. any) what this constructor
syntax was, and they thought it was a macro. I know of no other language
that has adopted this same syntax. As the rustc codebase features many
contributors experienced in many other languages, using a less...
unique... style has many other benefits in making this code more
lucid and maintainable, which is something it direly needs.
[^0]: e.g. https://abseil.io/tips/88
Adds initial support for DataFlowSanitizer to the Rust compiler. It
currently supports `-Zsanitizer-dataflow-abilist`. Additional options
for it can be passed to LLVM command line argument processor via LLVM
arguments using `llvm-args` codegen option (e.g.,
`-Cllvm-args=-dfsan-combine-pointer-labels-on-load=false`).
Update to LLVM 18
LLVM 18 final is planned to be released on Mar 5th. Rust 1.78 is planned to be released on May 2nd.
Tested images: dist-x86_64-linux, dist-s390x-linux, dist-aarch64-linux, dist-riscv64-linux, dist-loongarch64-linux, dist-x86_64-freebsd, dist-x86_64-illumos, dist-x86_64-musl, x86_64-linux-integration, test-various, armhf-gnu, i686-msvc, x86_64-msvc, i686-mingw, x86_64-mingw, x86_64-apple-1, x86_64-apple-2, dist-aarch64-apple
r? `@ghost`
