coverage: Prepare mappings separately from injecting statements
These two tasks historically needed to be interleaved, but after various recent changes (including #116046 and #116917) they can now be fully separated.
---
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
These two tasks historically needed to be interleaved, but after various recent
changes (including #116046 and #116917) they can now be fully separated.
Implement constant propagation on top of MIR SSA analysis
This implements the idea I proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110719#issuecomment-1718324700
Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/109597
The value numbering "GVN" pass formulates each rvalue that appears in MIR with an abstract form (the `Value` enum), and assigns an integer `VnIndex` to each. This abstract form can be used to deduplicate values, reusing an earlier local that holds the same value instead of recomputing. This part is proposed in #109597.
From this abstract representation, we can perform more involved simplifications, for example in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111344.
With the abstract representation `Value`, we can also attempt to evaluate each to a constant using the interpreter. This builds a `VnIndex -> OpTy` map. From this map, we can opportunistically replace an operand or a rvalue with a constant if their value has an associated `OpTy`.
The most relevant commit is [Evaluated computed values to constants.](2767c4912e)"
r? `@oli-obk`
Make closures carry their own ClosureKind
Right now, we use the "`movability`" field of `hir::Closure` to distinguish a closure and a coroutine. This is paired together with the `CoroutineKind`, which is located not in the `hir::Closure`, but the `hir::Body`. This is strange and redundant.
This PR introduces `ClosureKind` with two variants -- `Closure` and `Coroutine`, which is put into `hir::Closure`. The `CoroutineKind` is thus removed from `hir::Body`, and `Option<Movability>` no longer needs to be a stand-in for "is this a closure or a coroutine".
r? eholk
Split coroutine desugaring kind from source
What a coroutine is desugared from (gen/async gen/async) should be separate from where it comes (fn/block/closure).
Separate MIR lints from validation
Add a MIR lint pass, enabled with -Zlint-mir, which identifies undefined or
likely erroneous behaviour.
The initial implementation mostly migrates existing checks of this nature from
MIR validator, where they did not belong (those checks have false positives and
there is nothing inherently invalid about MIR with undefined behaviour).
Fixes#104736Fixes#104843Fixes#116079Fixes#116736Fixes#118990
The old code used a heuristic to detect async functions and adjust their
coverage spans to produce better output. But there's no need to resort to a
heuristic when we can just check whether the current function is actually an
`async fn`.
And make all hand-written `IntoDiagnostic` impls generic, by using
`DiagnosticBuilder::new(dcx, level, ...)` instead of e.g.
`dcx.struct_err(...)`.
This means the `create_*` functions are the source of the error level.
This change will let us remove `struct_diagnostic`.
Note: `#[rustc_lint_diagnostics]` is added to `DiagnosticBuilder::new`,
it's necessary to pass diagnostics tests now that it's used in
`into_diagnostic` functions.
coverage: Skip instrumenting a function if no spans were extracted from MIR
The immediate symptoms of #118643 were fixed by #118666, but some users reported that their builds now encounter another coverage-related ICE:
```
error: internal compiler error: compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/coverageinfo/mapgen.rs:98:17: A used function should have had coverage mapping data but did not: (...)
```
I was able to reproduce at least one cause of this error: if no relevant spans could be extracted from a function, but the function contains `CoverageKind::SpanMarker` statements, then codegen still thinks the function is instrumented and complains about the fact that it has no coverage spans.
This PR prevents that from happening in two ways:
- If we didn't extract any relevant spans from MIR, skip instrumenting the entire function and don't create a `FunctionCoverateInfo` for it.
- If coverage codegen sees a `CoverageKind::SpanMarker` statement, skip it early and avoid creating `func_coverage`.
---
Fixes#118850.
Rollup of 3 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #116888 (Add discussion that concurrent access to the environment is unsafe)
- #118888 (Uplift `TypeAndMut` and `ClosureKind` to `rustc_type_ir`)
- #118929 (coverage: Tidy up early parts of the instrumentor pass)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
coverage: Tidy up early parts of the instrumentor pass
This is extracted from #118237, which needed to be manually rebased anyway.
Unlike that PR, this one only affects the coverage instrumentor, and doesn't attempt to move any code into the MIR builder. That can be left to a future version of #118305, which can still benefit from these improvements.
So this is now mostly a refactoring of some internal parts of the instrumentor.
Fix cases where std accidentally relied on inline(never)
This PR increases the power of `-Zcross-crate-inline-threshold=always` so that it applies through `#[inline(never)]`. Note that though this is called "cross-crate-inlining" in this case especially it is _just_ lazy per-CGU codegen. The MIR inliner and LLVM still respect the attribute as much as they ever have.
Trying to bootstrap with the new `-Zcross-crate-inline-threshold=always` change revealed two bugs:
We have special intrinsics `assert_inhabited`, `assert_zero_valid`, and `assert_mem_uniniitalized_valid` which codegen backends will lower to nothing or a call to `panic_nounwind`. Since we may not have any call to `panic_nounwind` in MIR but emit one anyway, we need to specially tell `MirUsedCollector` about this situation.
`#[lang = "start"]` is special-cased already so that `MirUsedCollector` will collect it, but then when we make it cross-crate-inlinable it is only assigned to a CGU based on whether `MirUsedCollector` saw a call to it, which of course we didn't.
---
I started looking into this because https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118683 revealed a case where we were accidentally relying on a function being `#[inline(never)]`, and cranking up cross-crate-inlinability seems like a way to find other situations like that.
r? `@nnethercote` because I don't like what I'm doing to the CGU partitioning code here but I can't come up with something much better
If we want to know whether two byte positions are in the same file, we don't
need to clone and compare `Lrc<SourceFile>`; we can just get their indices and
compare those instead.
