It makes it sound like the `ExprKind` and `Rvalue` are supposed to represent all pointer related
casts, when in reality their just used to share a some enum variants. Make it clear there these
are only coercion to make it clear why only some pointer related "casts" are in the enum.
Permit the MIR inliner to inline diverging functions
This heuristic prevents inlining of `hint::unreachable_unchecked`, which in turn makes `Option/Result::unwrap_unchecked` a bad inlining candidate. I looked through the changes to `core`, `alloc`, `std`, and `hashbrown` by hand and they all seem reasonable. Let's see how this looks in perf...
---
Based on rustc-perf it looks like this regresses ctfe-stress, and the cachegrind diff indicates that this regression is in `InterpCx::statement`. I don't know how to do any deeper analysis because that function is _enormous_ in the try toolchain, which has no debuginfo in it. And a local build produces significantly different codegen for that function, even with LTO.
Simpler checked shifts in MIR building
Doing masking to check unsigned shift amounts is overcomplicated; just comparing the shift directly saves a statement and a temporary, as well as is much easier to read as a human. And shifting by unsigned is the canonical case -- notably, all the library shifting methods (that don't support every type) take shift RHSs as `u32` -- so we might as well make that simpler since it's easy to do so.
This PR also changes *signed* shift amounts to `IntToInt` casts and then uses the same check as for unsigned. The bit-masking is a nice trick, but for example LLVM actually canonicalizes it to an unsigned comparison anyway <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/8h59fMGT4> so I don't think it's worth the effort and the extra `Constant`. (If MIR's `assert` was `assert_nz` then the masking might make sense, but when the `!=` uses another statement I think the comparison is better.)
To review, I suggest looking at 2ee0468c49 first -- that's the interesting code change and has a MIR diff.
My favourite part of the diff:
```diff
- _20 = BitAnd(_19, const 340282366920938463463374607431768211448_u128); // scope 0 at $DIR/shifts.rs:+2:34: +2:44
- _21 = Ne(move _20, const 0_u128); // scope 0 at $DIR/shifts.rs:+2:34: +2:44
- assert(!move _21, "attempt to shift right by `{}`, which would overflow", _19) -> [success: bb3, unwind: bb7]; // scope 0 at $DIR/shifts.rs:+2:34: +2:44
+ _18 = Lt(_17, const 8_u128); // scope 0 at $DIR/shifts.rs:+2:34: +2:44
+ assert(move _18, "attempt to shift right by `{}`, which would overflow", _17) -> [success: bb3, unwind: bb7]; // scope 0 at $DIR/shifts.rs:+2:34: +2:44
```
Custom MIR: Allow optional RET type annotation
This currently doesn't compile because the type of `RET` is inferred, which fails if RET is a composite type and fields are initialised separately.
```rust
#![feature(custom_mir, core_intrinsics)]
extern crate core;
use core::intrinsics::mir::*;
#[custom_mir(dialect = "runtime", phase = "optimized")]
fn fn0() -> (i32, bool) {
mir! ({
RET.0 = 0;
RET.1 = true;
Return()
})
}
```
```
error[E0282]: type annotations needed
--> src/lib.rs:8:9
|
8 | RET.0 = 0;
| ^^^ cannot infer type
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0282`.
```
This PR allows the user to manually specify the return type with `type RET = ...;` if required:
```rust
#[custom_mir(dialect = "runtime", phase = "optimized")]
fn fn0() -> (i32, bool) {
mir! (
type RET = (i32, bool);
{
RET.0 = 0;
RET.1 = true;
Return()
}
)
}
```
The syntax is not optimal, I'm happy to see other suggestions. Ideally I wanted it to be a normal type annotation like `let RET: ...;`, but this runs into the multiple parsing options error during macro expansion, as it can be parsed as a normal `let` declaration as well.
r? ```@oli-obk``` or ```@tmiasko``` or ```@JakobDegen```
Remove `identity_future` indirection
This was previously needed because the indirection used to hide some unexplained lifetime errors, which it turned out were related to the `min_choice` algorithm.
Removing the indirection also solves a couple of cycle errors, large moves and makes async blocks support the `#[track_caller]`annotation.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104826.
This was previously needed because the indirection used to hide some unexplained lifetime errors, which it turned out were related to the `min_choice` algorithm.
Removing the indirection also solves a couple of cycle errors, large moves and makes async blocks support the `#[track_caller]` annotation.
Custom MIR: Support binary and unary operations
Lower binary and unary operations directly to corresponding unchecked MIR
operations. Ultimately this might not be syntax we want, but it allows for
experimentation in the meantime.
r? ````@oli-obk```` ````@JakobDegen````
- Eliminates all the `get_context` calls that async lowering created.
- Replace all `Local` `ResumeTy` types with `&mut Context<'_>`.
The `Local`s that have their types replaced are:
- The `resume` argument itself.
- The argument to `get_context`.
- The yielded value of a `yield`.
The `ResumeTy` hides a `&mut Context<'_>` behind an unsafe raw pointer, and the
`get_context` function is being used to convert that back to a `&mut Context<'_>`.
Ideally the async lowering would not use the `ResumeTy`/`get_context` indirection,
but rather directly use `&mut Context<'_>`, however that would currently
lead to higher-kinded lifetime errors.
See <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105501>.
The async lowering step and the type / lifetime inference / checking are
still using the `ResumeTy` indirection for the time being, and that indirection
is removed here. After this transform, the generator body only knows about `&mut Context<'_>`.
The test cases src/test/mir-opt/building/custom/consts.rs and
src/test/mir-opt/const_prop/mutable_variable_no_prop.rs are
currently failing on big-endian platforms as the binary encoding
of some constants is hard-coded in the MIR test files. Fix this
by choosing constant values that have the same encoding on big-
and little-endian platforms.
The test case src/test/mir-opt/issues/issue_75439.rs is failing
as well, but since the purpose of the test is to validate handling
of big-endian integer encodings on a little-endian platform, it does
not make much sense to run it on big-endian platforms in the first
place - we can just ignore it there.
Fixed part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105383.
