Do not eat nested expressions' results in `MayContainYieldPoint` format args visitor
#121563 unintentionally changed the `MayContainYieldPoint` format args visitor behavior, now missing yield points in nested expressions, as seen in #122674.
The walk can find a yield point in an expression but it was ignored.
r? ``@petrochenkov`` as the reviewer of #121563
cc ``@Jarcho`` as the author
Fixes#122674.
We're in the 1.77 release week. #121563 will land on 1.78 but beta is still 1.77.9: this PR will likely need to be backported soon after beta is cut.
Update the minimum external LLVM to 17
With this change, we'll have stable support for LLVM 17 and 18.
For reference, the previous increase to LLVM 16 was #117947.
add_retag: ensure box-to-raw-ptr casts are preserved for Miri
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122233 I added `retag_box_to_raw` not realizing that we can already do `addr_of_mut!(*bx)` to turn a box into a raw pointer without an intermediate reference. We just need to ensure this information is preserved past the ElaborateBoxDerefs pass.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Remove fixme about LLVM basic block naming
~This may be a small perf win.~
Originally, this PR implemented the fixme, but it didn't have any measurable perf improvement.
r? ``@ghost``
Avoid various uses of `Option<Span>` in favor of using `DUMMY_SP` in the few cases that used `None`
based on #122471
`DUMMY_SP` is already the sentinel value we have that says "no span". We don't need to wrap these `Span`s in a separate `Option`.
Enable frame pointers for the standard library
There's been a few past experiments for enabling frame pointers for all our artifacts. I don't think that frame pointers in the distributed compiler are nearly as useful as frame pointers in the standard library. Our users are much more likely to be profiling apps written in Rust than they are profiling the Rust compiler.
So yeah it would be cool to have frame pointers in the compiler, but much more of the value is having them on the precompiled standard library. That's what this PR does.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #122639 (Fix typos)
- #122654 (interpret/memory: explain why we use == on bool)
- #122656 (simplify_cfg: rename some passes so that they make more sense)
- #122657 (Move `option_env!` and `env!` tests to the `env-macro` directory)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Move `option_env!` and `env!` tests to the `env-macro` directory
This PR moves the `option_env!` tests to there own directory (`extoption_env`), matching the naming convention used by the tests for `env!` (which live in the `extenv` directory).
simplify_cfg: rename some passes so that they make more sense
I was extremely confused by `SimplifyCfg::ElaborateDrops`, since it runs way later than drop elaboration. It is used e.g. in `mir-opt/retag.rs` even though that pass doesn't care about drop elaboration at all.
"Early opt" is also very confusing since that makes it sounds like it runs early during optimizations, i.e. on runtime MIR, but actually it runs way before that.
So I decided to rename
- early-opt -> post-analysis
- elaborate-drops -> pre-optimizations
I am open to other suggestions.
feat: implement `{Div,Rem}Assign<NonZero<X>>` on `X`
# Description
This PR implements `DivAssign<X>` and `RemAssign<X>` on `X` as suggested in rust-lang/libs-team#346.
Since this is just a trait implementation on an already stable type, for which non-assign operator traits are already stable, I suggest that it is an insta-stable feature.
Detect when move of !Copy value occurs within loop and should likely not be cloned
When encountering a move error on a value within a loop of any kind,
identify if the moved value belongs to a call expression that should not
be cloned and avoid the semantically incorrect suggestion. Also try to
suggest moving the call expression outside of the loop instead.
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `vec`
--> $DIR/recreating-value-in-loop-condition.rs:6:33
|
LL | let vec = vec!["one", "two", "three"];
| --- move occurs because `vec` has type `Vec<&str>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
LL | while let Some(item) = iter(vec).next() {
| ----------------------------^^^--------
| | |
| | value moved here, in previous iteration of loop
| inside of this loop
|
note: consider changing this parameter type in function `iter` to borrow instead if owning the value isn't necessary
--> $DIR/recreating-value-in-loop-condition.rs:1:17
|
LL | fn iter<T>(vec: Vec<T>) -> impl Iterator<Item = T> {
| ---- ^^^^^^ this parameter takes ownership of the value
| |
| in this function
help: consider moving the expression out of the loop so it is only moved once
|
LL ~ let mut value = iter(vec);
LL ~ while let Some(item) = value.next() {
|
```
We use the presence of a `break` in the loop that would be affected by
the moved value as a heuristic for "shouldn't be cloned".
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121466.
---
*Point at continue and break that might be in the wrong place*
Sometimes move errors are because of a misplaced `continue`, but we didn't
surface that anywhere. Now when there are more than one set of nested loops
we show them out and point at the `continue` and `break` expressions within
that might need to go elsewhere.
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `foo`
--> $DIR/nested-loop-moved-value-wrong-continue.rs:46:18
|
LL | for foo in foos {
| ---
| |
| this reinitialization might get skipped
| move occurs because `foo` has type `String`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
...
LL | for bar in &bars {
| ---------------- inside of this loop
...
LL | baz.push(foo);
| --- value moved here, in previous iteration of loop
...
LL | qux.push(foo);
| ^^^ value used here after move
|
note: verify that your loop breaking logic is correct
--> $DIR/nested-loop-moved-value-wrong-continue.rs:41:17
|
LL | for foo in foos {
| ---------------
...
LL | for bar in &bars {
| ----------------
...
LL | continue;
| ^^^^^^^^ this `continue` advances the loop at line 33
help: consider moving the expression out of the loop so it is only moved once
|
LL ~ let mut value = baz.push(foo);
LL ~ for bar in &bars {
LL |
...
LL | if foo == *bar {
LL ~ value;
|
help: consider cloning the value if the performance cost is acceptable
|
LL | baz.push(foo.clone());
| ++++++++
```
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/92531.
collector: move ensure_sufficient_stack out of the loop
According to the docs this call has some overhead to putting it inside the loop doesn't seem like a good idea.
r? `@oli-obk`
Sometimes move errors are because of a misplaced `continue`, but we didn't
surface that anywhere. Now when there are more than one set of nested loops
we show them out and point at the `continue` and `break` expressions within
that might need to go elsewhere.
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `foo`
--> $DIR/nested-loop-moved-value-wrong-continue.rs:46:18
|
LL | for foo in foos {
| ---
| |
| this reinitialization might get skipped
| move occurs because `foo` has type `String`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
...
LL | for bar in &bars {
| ---------------- inside of this loop
...
LL | baz.push(foo);
| --- value moved here, in previous iteration of loop
...
LL | qux.push(foo);
| ^^^ value used here after move
|
note: verify that your loop breaking logic is correct
--> $DIR/nested-loop-moved-value-wrong-continue.rs:41:17
|
LL | for foo in foos {
| ---------------
...
LL | for bar in &bars {
| ----------------
...
LL | continue;
| ^^^^^^^^ this `continue` advances the loop at line 33
help: consider moving the expression out of the loop so it is only moved once
|
LL ~ let mut value = baz.push(foo);
LL ~ for bar in &bars {
LL |
...
LL | if foo == *bar {
LL ~ value;
|
help: consider cloning the value if the performance cost is acceptable
|
LL | baz.push(foo.clone());
| ++++++++
```
Fix#92531.
When encountering a move error on a value within a loop of any kind,
identify if the moved value belongs to a call expression that should not
be cloned and avoid the semantically incorrect suggestion. Also try to
suggest moving the call expression outside of the loop instead.
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `vec`
--> $DIR/recreating-value-in-loop-condition.rs:6:33
|
LL | let vec = vec!["one", "two", "three"];
| --- move occurs because `vec` has type `Vec<&str>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
LL | while let Some(item) = iter(vec).next() {
| ----------------------------^^^--------
| | |
| | value moved here, in previous iteration of loop
| inside of this loop
|
note: consider changing this parameter type in function `iter` to borrow instead if owning the value isn't necessary
--> $DIR/recreating-value-in-loop-condition.rs:1:17
|
LL | fn iter<T>(vec: Vec<T>) -> impl Iterator<Item = T> {
| ---- ^^^^^^ this parameter takes ownership of the value
| |
| in this function
help: consider moving the expression out of the loop so it is only moved once
|
LL ~ let mut value = iter(vec);
LL ~ while let Some(item) = value.next() {
|
```
We use the presence of a `break` in the loop that would be affected by
the moved value as a heuristic for "shouldn't be cloned".
Fix#121466.
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #120640 (Mark UEFI std support as WIP)
- #121862 (Add release notes for 1.77.0)
- #122572 (add test for #122301 to cover behavior that's on stable)
- #122578 (Only invoke `decorate` if the diag can eventually be emitted)
- #122615 (Mention Zalathar for coverage changes)
- #122636 (some minor code simplifications)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Mark UEFI std support as WIP
Currently stdio and alloc support is present with open PRs for some of the other portions.
A prototype of almost all of std support can be found [here](https://github.com/tianocore/rust/tree/uefi-master). I will be up-streaming as much stuff as possible from there.
