Split rustc_mir
The `rustc_mir` crate is the second largest in the compiler.
This PR splits it up into 5 crates:
- rustc_borrowck;
- rustc_const_eval;
- rustc_mir_dataflow;
- rustc_mir_transform;
- rustc_monomorphize.
Mmap the incremental data instead of reading it.
Instead of reading the full incremental state using `fs::read_file`, we memmap it using a private read-only file-backed map.
This allows the system to reclaim any memory we are not using, while ensuring we are not polluted by
outside modifications to the file.
Suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83036#issuecomment-800458082 by `@bjorn3`
Avoid invoking the hir_crate query to traverse the HIR
Walking the HIR tree is done using the `hir_crate` query. However, this is unnecessary, since `hir_owner(CRATE_DEF_ID)` provides the same information. Since depending on `hir_crate` forces dependents to always be executed, this leads to unnecessary work.
By splitting HIR and attributes visits, we can avoid an edge to `hir_crate` when trying to visit the HIR tree.
Stop allocating vtable entries for non-object-safe methods
Current a vtable entry is allocated for all associated fns, even if the method is not object-safe: https://godbolt.org/z/h7vx6f35T
As a result, each vtable for `Iterator`' currently consumes 74 `usize`s. This PR stops allocating vtable entries for those methods, reducing vtable size of each `Iterator` vtable to 7 `usize`s.
Note that this PR introduces will cause more invocations of `is_vtable_safe_method`. So a perf run might be needed. If result isn't favorable then we might need to query-ify `is_vtable_safe_method`.
Provide `layout_of` automatically (given tcx + param_env + error handling).
After #88337, there's no longer any uses of `LayoutOf` within `rustc_target` itself, so I realized I could move the trait to `rustc_middle::ty::layout` and redesign it a bit.
This is similar to #88338 (and supersedes it), but at no ergonomic loss, since there's no funky `C: LayoutOf<Ty = Ty>` -> `Ty: TyAbiInterface<C>` generic `impl` chain, and each `LayoutOf` still corresponds to one `impl` (of `LayoutOfHelpers`) for the specific context.
After this PR, this is what's needed to get `trait LayoutOf` (with the `layout_of` method) implemented on some context type:
* `TyCtxt`, via `HasTyCtxt`
* `ParamEnv`, via `HasParamEnv`
* a way to transform `LayoutError`s into the desired error type
* an error type of `!` can be paired with having `cx.layout_of(...)` return `TyAndLayout` *without* `Result<...>` around it, such as used by codegen
* this is done through a new `LayoutOfHelpers` trait (and so is specifying the type of `cx.layout_of(...)`)
When going through this path (and not bypassing it with a manual `impl` of `LayoutOf`), the end result is that only the error case can be customized, the query itself and the success paths are guaranteed to be uniform.
(**EDIT**: just noticed that because of the supertrait relationship, you cannot actually implement `LayoutOf` yourself, the blanket `impl` fully covers all possible context types that could ever implement it)
Part of the motivation for this shape of API is that I've been working on querifying `FnAbi::of_*`, and what I want/need to introduce for that looks a lot like the setup in this PR - in particular, it's harder to express the `FnAbi` methods in `rustc_target`, since they're much more tied to `rustc` concepts.
r? `@nagisa` cc `@oli-obk` `@bjorn3`
Fix drop handling for `if let` expressions
MIR lowering for `if let` expressions is now more complicated now that
`if let` exists in HIR. This PR adds a scope for the variables bound in
an `if let` expression and then uses an approach similar to how we
handle loops to ensure that we reliably drop the correct variables.
Closes#88307
cc `@flip1995` `@richkadel` `@c410-f3r`
MIR lowering for `if let` expressions is now more complicated now that
`if let` exists in HIR. This PR adds a scope for the variables bound in
an `if let` expression and then uses an approach similar to how we
handle loops to ensure that we reliably drop the correct variables.
Introduce `let...else`
Tracking issue: #87335
The trickiest part for me was enforcing the diverging else block with clear diagnostics. Perhaps the obvious solution is to expand to `let _: ! = ..`, but I decided against this because, when a "mismatched type" error is found in typeck, there is no way to trace where in the HIR the expected type originated, AFAICT. In order to pass down this information, I believe we should introduce `Expectation::LetElseNever(HirId)` or maybe add `HirId` to `Expectation::HasType`, but I left that as a future enhancement. For now, I simply assert that the block is `!` with a custom `ObligationCauseCode`, and I think this is clear enough, at least to start. The downside here is that the error points at the entire block rather than the specific expression with the wrong type. I left a todo to this effect.
Overall, I believe this PR is feature-complete with regard to the RFC.
rustc_target: `TyAndLayout::field` should never error.
This refactor (making `TyAndLayout::field` return `TyAndLayout` without any `Result` around it) is based on a simple observation, regarding `TyAndLayout::field`:
If `cx.layout_of(ty)` succeeds (for some `cx` and `ty`), then `.field(cx, i)` on the resulting `TyAndLayout` should *always* succeed in computing `cx.layout_of(field_ty)` (where `field_ty` is the type of the `i`th field of `ty`).
The reason for this is that no matter which field is chosen, `cx.layout_of(field_ty)` *will have already been computed*, as part of computing `cx.layout_of(ty)`, as we cannot determine the layout of *any* type without considering the layouts of *all* of its fields.
And so it should be fine to turn any errors into ICEs, since they likely indicate a `cx` mismatch, or some other edge case that is due to a compiler bug (as opposed to ever being an user-facing error).
<hr/>
Each commit should probably be reviewed separately, though note that there's some `where` clauses (in `rustc_target::abi::call::*`) that change in most commits.
cc `@nagisa` `@oli-obk`
