Account for things that optimize out in inlining costs
This updates the MIR inlining `CostChecker` to have both bonuses and penalties, rather than just penalties.
That lets us add bonuses for some things where we want to encourage inlining without risking wrapping into a gigantic cost. For example, `switchInt(const …)` we give an inlining bonus because codegen will actually eliminate the branch (and associated dead blocks) once it's monomorphized, so measuring both sides of the branch gives an unrealistically-high cost to it. Similarly, an `unreachable` terminator gets a small bonus, because whatever branch leads there doesn't actually exist post-codegen.
Replace sort implementations
This PR replaces the sort implementations with tailor-made ones that strike a balance of run-time, compile-time and binary-size, yielding run-time and compile-time improvements. Regressing binary-size for `slice::sort` while improving it for `slice::sort_unstable`. All while upholding the existing soft and hard safety guarantees, and even extending the soft guarantees, detecting strict weak ordering violations with a high chance and reporting it to users via a panic.
* `slice::sort` -> driftsort [design document](https://github.com/Voultapher/sort-research-rs/blob/main/writeup/driftsort_introduction/text.md), includes detailed benchmarks and analysis.
* `slice::sort_unstable` -> ipnsort [design document](https://github.com/Voultapher/sort-research-rs/blob/main/writeup/ipnsort_introduction/text.md), includes detailed benchmarks and analysis.
#### Why should we change the sort implementations?
In the [2023 Rust survey](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/02/19/2023-Rust-Annual-Survey-2023-results.html#challenges), one of the questions was: "In your opinion, how should work on the following aspects of Rust be prioritized?". The second place was "Runtime performance" and the third one "Compile Times". This PR aims to improve both.
#### Why is this one big PR and not multiple?
* The current documentation gives performance recommendations for `slice::sort` and `slice::sort_unstable`. If for example only one of them were to be changed, this advice would be misleading for some Rust versions. By replacing them atomically, the advice remains largely unchanged, and users don't have to change their code.
* driftsort and ipnsort share a substantial part of their implementations.
* The implementation of `select_nth_unstable` uses internals of `slice::sort_unstable`, which makes it impractical to split changes.
---
This PR is a collaboration with `@orlp.`
add `needs-unwind` to UI test
the `tail-expr-lock-poisoning` UI test uses the `panic::catch_unwind` API so it relies on unwinding being implemented. this test ought not to run on targets that do not support unwinding. add the `needs-unwind` attribute to signal this
Remove `feature(const_closures)` from libcore
This is an incomplete feature and apparently it has no uses in `core`. Incomplete features should generally not be used in our standard library.
collect attrs in const block expr
Fixes#126516Fixes#126647
It was forgotten to collect these attributes in the const block expression.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Rewrite `extern-flag-rename-transitive`. `debugger-visualizer-dep-info`, `metadata-flag-frobs-symbols`, `extern-overrides-distribution` and `forced-unwind-terminate-pof` `run-make` tests to rmake
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
try-job: dist-x86_64-apple
Migrate `link-args-order`, `ls-metadata` and `lto-readonly-lib` `run-make` tests to `rmake`
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
Guaranteed to fail CI until #125736 gets merged. Will require addition of `fs_wrapper::set_permissions` in the associated module.
try-job: x86_64-msvc
The previous message omits which of the dozens of tools called tidy is
meant. And it's written in a way that one can easily miss the *not*,
thinking it reads "Note that `tidy` is the in-tree `src/tools/tidy` but
needs to be installed". The error message should hopefully help future
contributors.
the `tail-expr-lock-poisoning` UI test uses the `panic::catch_unwind`
API so it relies on unwinding being implemented. this test ought not to
run on targets that do not support unwinding. add the `needs-unwind`
attribute to signal this
Add opaque type corner case test
r? ``@lcnr``
I can't make sense of the new solver tracing logs yet, so I just added the test without explanation.
The old solver does not yet figure out that `Foo == ()` from the where bounds. Unfortunately, even if we make it understand that, it will later try to prove `<X as Trait<'static>>::Out<Foo>: Sized` via the `is_sized_raw` query, which does not take a list of defineable opaque types, causing that check to fail with an ICE.
Thus I'm submitting this test case on its own just to ensure we handle it correctly in the future with any new solver or old solver changes.
Fix assertion failure for some `Expect` diagnostics.
In #120699 I moved some code dealing with `has_future_breakage` earlier in `emit_diagnostic`. Issue #126521 identified a case where that reordering was invalid (leading to an assertion failure) for some `Expect` diagnostics.
This commit partially undoes the change, by moving the handling of unstable `Expect` diagnostics earlier again. This makes `emit_diagnostic` a bit uglier, but is necessary to fix the problem.
Fixes#126521.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Clean up some comments near `use` declarations
#125443 will reformat all `use` declarations in the repository. There are a few edge cases involving comments on `use` declarations that require care. This PR cleans up some clumsy comment cases, taking us a step closer to #125443 being able to merge.
r? ``@lqd``
Make Option::as_[mut_]slice const
These two functions can both be made `const`. I have added them to the `const_option_ext` feature, #91930. I don't believe there is anything blocking stabilization of `as_slice`, but `as_mut_slice` contains mutable references so depends on `const_mut_refs`.
More status-quo tests for the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute
Follow-up to #126621, after I found even more weird corner-cases in the handling of the coverage attribute.
These tests reveal some inconsistencies that are tracked by #126658.
Add std Xtensa targets support
Adds std Xtensa targets. This enables using Rust on ESP32, ESP32-S2 and ESP32-S3 chips.
Tier 3 policy:
> A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on
record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such
developers may evolve over time.)
`@MabezDev,` `@ivmarkov` and I (`@SergioGasquez)` will maintain the targets.
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a target for the same
CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same name for that CPU or OS. Targets should
normally use the same names and naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond
Rust (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to diverge. Changing the
name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially once the target reaches a higher tier, so
getting the name right is important even for a tier 3 target.
The target triple is consistent with other targets.
> Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to
maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if the name of the target makes people extremely
likely to form incorrect beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to
disambiguate it.
> If possible, use only letters, numbers, dashes and underscores for the name. Periods (.) are known
to cause issues in Cargo.
We follow the same naming convention as other targets.
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or
impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.
The target does not introduce any legal issues.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
There are no license incompatibilities
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Everything added is under that licenses
> The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when
supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the
Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding
new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether
the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must
not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new
license requirements.
Requirements are not changed for any other target.
> Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other code for the target
(whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling from another target) must not depend on
proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries. Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary
runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications built for the
target, but those libraries must not be required for code generation for the target;
cross-compilation to the target must not require such libraries at all. For instance, rustc built
for the target may depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library, but
must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code optimization library. Rust's
license permits such combinations, but the Rust project has no interest in maintaining such
combinations within the scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
The linker used by the targets is the GCC linker from the GCC toolchain cross-compiled for Xtensa.
GNU GPL.
> "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous" legal/licensing terms
include but are not limited to: non-disclosure requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor
license agreements (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms, requirements
conditional on the employer or employment of any particular Rust developers, revocable terms, any
requirements that create liability for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any
requirements that adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its developers
or users.
No such terms exist for this target
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or
estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a
target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their
decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the
target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.
> This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit
contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement
exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not
face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment
in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of
these requirements.
Understood
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and
appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation,
std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but
may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether
because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull
requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a
tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
The targets implement libStd almost in its entirety, except for the missing support for process, as
this is a bare metal platform. The process `sys\unix` module is currently stubbed to return "not
implemented" errors.
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the
target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running binaries, or running
tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests
for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Here is how to build for the target https://docs.esp-rs.org/book/installation/riscv-and-xtensa.html
and it also covers how to run binaries on the target.
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the
community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR
that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or
notifications (via any medium, including via `@)` to a PR author or others involved with a PR
regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.
> Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not
considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate
repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such
notifications.
Understood
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and
must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the
maintainers of the other tier 3 target.
> In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the
same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that
another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as
appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
No other targets should be affected
> Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of rustc's supported backends
from any host target.
It can produce assembly, but it requires a custom LLVM with Xtensa support
(https://github.com/espressif/llvm-project/). The patches are trying to be upstreamed
(https://github.com/espressif/llvm-project/issues/4)
Stabilise `c_unwind`
Fix#74990Fix#115285 (that's also where FCP is happening)
Marking as draft PR for now due to `compiler_builtins` issues
r? `@Amanieu`
Trying to address an incremental compilation issues
This pull request contains two independent changes, one makes it so when `try_force_from_dep_node` fails to recover a query - it marks the node as "red" instead of "green" and the second one makes Debug impl for `DepNode` less panicky if it encounters something from the previous compilation that doesn't map to anything in the current one.
I'm not 100% confident that this is the correct approach, but so far I managed to find a bunch of comments suggesting that some things are allowed to fail in a certain way and changes I made are allowing for those things to fail this way and it fixes all the small reproducers I managed to find.
Compilation panic this pull request avoids is caused by an automatically generated code on an associated type and it is not happening if something else marks it as outdated first (or close like that, but scenario is quite obscure).
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/107226
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125367
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126620 (Actually taint InferCtxt when a fulfillment error is emitted)
- #126649 (Fix `feature = "nightly"` in the new trait solver)
- #126652 (Clarify that anonymous consts still do introduce a new scope)
- #126703 (reword the hint::blackbox non-guarantees)
- #126708 (Minimize `can_begin_literal_maybe_minus` usage)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Minimize `can_begin_literal_maybe_minus` usage
`can_begin_literal_maybe_minus` is used in a few confusing ways. This PR makes them clearer.
r? ``@spastorino``
reword the hint::blackbox non-guarantees
People were tripped up by the "precludes", interpreting it that this function must not ever be used in cryptographic contexts rather than the std lib merely making zero promises about it being fit-for-purpose.
What remains unchanged is that if someone does try to use it *despite the warnings* then it is on them to pin their compiler versions and verify the assembly of every single binary build they do.
Clarify that anonymous consts still do introduce a new scope
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120363#issuecomment-2177064702
This error message is misleading: it's trying to say that `const _ : () = ...` is a workaround for the lint, but by saying that anonymous constants are treated as being in the parent scope, it makes them appear useless for scope-hiding.
They *are* useful for scope-hiding, they are simply treated as part of the parent scope when it comes to this lint.
Actually taint InferCtxt when a fulfillment error is emitted
And avoid checking the global error counter
fixes#122044fixes#123255fixes#123276fixes#125799
In #120699 I moved some code dealing with `has_future_breakage` earlier
in `emit_diagnostic`. Issue #126521 identified a case where that
reordering was invalid (leading to an assertion failure) for some `Expect`
diagnostics.
This commit partially undoes the change, by moving the handling of
unstable `Expect` diagnostics earlier again. This makes
`emit_diagnostic` a bit uglier, but is necessary to fix the problem.
Fixes#126521.
Most modules have such a blank line, but some don't. Inserting the blank
line makes it clearer that the `//!` comments are describing the entire
module, rather than the `use` declaration(s) that immediately follows.
This makes their intent and expected location clearer. We see some
examples where these comments were not clearly separate from `use`
declarations, which made it hard to understand what the comment is
describing.
