Because tiny CGUs make compilation less efficient *and* result in worse
generated code.
We don't do this when the number of CGUs is explicitly given, because
there are times when the requested number is very important, as
described in some comments within the commit. So the commit also
introduces a `CodegenUnits` type that distinguishes between default
values and user-specified values.
This change has a roughly neutral effect on walltimes across the
rustc-perf benchmarks; there are some speedups and some slowdowns. But
it has significant wins for most other metrics on numerous benchmarks,
including instruction counts, cycles, binary size, and max-rss. It also
reduces parallelism, which is good for reducing jobserver competition
when multiple rustc processes are running at the same time. It's smaller
benchmarks that benefit the most; larger benchmarks already have CGUs
that are all larger than the minimum size.
Here are some example before/after CGU sizes for opt builds.
- html5ever
- CGUs: 16, mean size: 1196.1, sizes: [3908, 2992, 1706, 1652, 1572,
1136, 1045, 948, 946, 938, 579, 471, 443, 327, 286, 189]
- CGUs: 4, mean size: 4396.0, sizes: [6706, 3908, 3490, 3480]
- libc
- CGUs: 12, mean size: 35.3, sizes: [163, 93, 58, 53, 37, 8, 2 (x6)]
- CGUs: 1, mean size: 424.0, sizes: [424]
- tt-muncher
- CGUs: 5, mean size: 1819.4, sizes: [8508, 350, 198, 34, 7]
- CGUs: 1, mean size: 9075.0, sizes: [9075]
Note that CGUs of size 100,000+ aren't unusual in larger programs.
Make struct layout not depend on unsizeable tail
fixes (after backport) https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/112048
Since unsizing `Ptr<Foo<T>>` -> `Ptr<Foo<U>` just copies the pointer and adds the metadata, the layout of `Foo` must not depend on niches in and alignment of the tail `T`.
Nominating for beta 1.71, because it will have this issue: `@rustbot` label beta-nominated
Ignore `core`, `alloc` and `test` tests that require unwinding on `-C panic=abort`
Some of the tests for `core` and `alloc` require unwinding through their use of `catch_unwind`. These tests fail when testing using `-C panic=abort` (in my case through a target without unwinding support, and `-Z panic-abort-tests`), while they should be ignored as they don't indicate a failure.
This PR marks all of these tests with this attribute:
```rust
#[cfg_attr(not(panic = "unwind"), ignore = "test requires unwinding support")]
```
I'm not aware of a way to test this on rust-lang/rust's CI, as we don't test any target with `-C panic=abort`, but I tested this locally on a Ferrocene target and it does indeed make the test suite pass.
Ignore `core`, `alloc` and `test` tests that require unwinding on `-C panic=abort`
Some of the tests for `core` and `alloc` require unwinding through their use of `catch_unwind`. These tests fail when testing using `-C panic=abort` (in my case through a target without unwinding support, and `-Z panic-abort-tests`), while they should be ignored as they don't indicate a failure.
This PR marks all of these tests with this attribute:
```rust
#[cfg_attr(not(panic = "unwind"), ignore = "test requires unwinding support")]
```
I'm not aware of a way to test this on rust-lang/rust's CI, as we don't test any target with `-C panic=abort`, but I tested this locally on a Ferrocene target and it does indeed make the test suite pass.
When building as part of rust, the sysroot source dir is symlinked to
the main source dir, which contains the build dir to which we are likely
copying.
Add MVP suggestion for `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn`
Rebase of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99827
cc tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71668
No real changes since the original PR, just migrated the new suggestion to use fluent messages and added a couple more testcases, AFAICT from the discussion there were no outstanding changes requested.
Adjust UI tests for `unit_bindings` lint
- Explicitly annotate `let x: () = expr;` where `x` has unit type, or remove the unit binding to leave only `expr;` instead.
- Use `let () = init;` or `let pat = ();` where appropriate.
- Fix disjoint-capture-in-same-closure test which wasn't actually testing a closure: `tests/ui/closures/2229_closure_analysis/run_pass/disjoint-capture-in-same-closure.rs`.
Note that unfortunately there's *a lot* of UI tests, there are a couple of places where I may have left something like `let (): ()` (this is not needed but is left over from an ealier version of the lint) which is bad style.
This PR is to help with the `unit_bindings` lint at #112380.
