Add `-Zstack-protector` test for Windows targets
Add variants of the `stack-protector-heuristics-effect.rs` test for 32-bit and 64-bit MSVC Windows and update the original test to run on GNU Windows targets.
I added two tests instead of trying to modify the original because:
- MSVC uses a different function name (`__security_check_cookie` to perform the test rather than doing the test inline and calling `__stack_chk_fail`).
- LLVM's stack protection pass doesn't currently support generating checks for [frames with funclet based EH personality](37fd3c96b9/llvm/lib/CodeGen/StackProtector.cpp (L103C1-L109C4)).
- 32-bit Windows uses classic EH while 64-bit Windows uses table-based EH which results in slightly different codegen.
[CI run with test passing on {i686,x86_64}-{msvc,mingw}](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/6275450644/job/17042958375?pr=116037)
Don't ICE when encountering unresolved regions in `fully_resolve`
We can encounter unresolved regions due to unconstrained impl lifetime arguments because `collect_return_position_impl_trait_in_trait_tys` runs before WF actually checks that the impl is well-formed.
Fixes#116525
Bump `COINDUCTIVE_OVERLAP_IN_COHERENCE` to deny + warn in deps
1.73 is the first place this shows up in stable (recall that there was only 1 regression), so let's bump this to deny on nightly.
r? lcnr
coverage: Move most per-function coverage info into `mir::Body`
Currently, all of the coverage information collected by the `InstrumentCoverage` pass is smuggled through MIR in the form of individual `StatementKind::Coverage` statements, which must then be reassembled by coverage codegen.
That's awkward for a number of reasons:
- While some of the coverage statements do care about their specific position in the MIR control-flow graph, many of them don't, and are just tacked onto the function's first BB as metadata carriers.
- MIR inlining can result in coverage statements being duplicated, so coverage codegen has to jump through hoops to avoid emitting duplicate mappings.
- MIR optimizations that would delete coverage statements need to carefully copy them into the function's first BB so as not to omit them from coverage reports.
- The order in which coverage codegen sees coverage statements is dependent on MIR optimizations/inlining, which can cause unnecessary churn in the emitted coverage mappings.
- We don't have a good way to annotate MIR-level functions with extra coverage info that doesn't belong in a statement.
---
This PR therefore takes most of the per-function coverage info and stores it in a field in `mir::Body` as `Option<Box<FunctionCoverageInfo>>`.
(This adds one pointer to the size of `mir::Body`, even when coverage is not enabled.)
Coverage statements still need to be injected into MIR in some cases, but only when they actually affect codegen (counters) or are needed to detect code that has been optimized away as unreachable (counters/expressions).
---
By the end of this PR, the information stored in `FunctionCoverageInfo` is:
- A hash of the function's source code (needed by LLVM's coverage map format)
- The number of coverage counters added by coverage instrumentation
- A table of coverage expressions, associating each expression ID with its operator (add or subtract) and its two operands
- The list of mappings, associating each covered code region with a counter/expression/zero value
---
~~This is built on top of #115301, so I'll rebase and roll a reviewer once that lands.~~
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
Even though expression details are now stored in the info structure, we still
need to inject `ExpressionUsed` statements into MIR, because if one is missing
during codegen then we know that it was optimized out and we can remap all of
its associated code regions to zero.
Previously, mappings were attached to individual coverage statements in MIR.
That necessitated special handling in MIR optimizations to avoid deleting those
statements, since otherwise codegen would be unable to reassemble the original
list of mappings.
With this change, a function's list of mappings is now attached to its MIR
body, and survives intact even if individual statements are deleted by
optimizations.
Use `YYYY-MM-DDTHH_MM_SS` as datetime format for ICE dump files
Windows paths do not support `:`, so use a datetime format in ICE dump paths that Windows will accept.
CC #116809, fix#115180.
Normalize alloc-id in tests.
AllocIds are globally numbered in a rustc invocation. This makes them very sensitive to changes unrelated to what is being tested. This commit normalizes them by renumbering, in order of appearance in the output.
The renumbering allows to keep the identity, that a simple `allocN` wouldn't. This is useful when we have memory dumps.
cc `@saethlin`
r? `@oli-obk`
Implement an internal lint encouraging use of `Span::eq_ctxt`
Adds a new Rustc internal lint that forbids use of `.ctxt() == .ctxt()` for spans, encouraging use of `.eq_ctxt()` instead (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49509).
Also fixed a few violations of the lint in the Rustc codebase (a fun additional way I could test my code). Edit: MIR opt folks I believe that's why you're CC'ed, just a heads up.
Two things I'm not sure about:
1. The way I chose to detect calls to `Span::ctxt`. I know adding diagnostic items to methods is generally discouraged, but after some searching and experimenting I couldn't find anything else that worked, so I went with it. That said, I'm happy to implement something different if there's a better way out there. (For what it's worth, if there is a better way, it might be worth documenting in the rustc-dev-guide, which I'm happy to take care of)
2. The error message for the lint. Ideally it would probably be good to give some context as to why the suggestion is made (e.g. `rustc::default_hash_types` tells the user that it's because of performance), but I don't have that context so I couldn't put it in the error message. Happy to iterate on the error message based on feedback during review.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Add MonoItems and Instance to stable_mir
Also add a few methods to instantiate instances and get an instance definition. We're still missing support to actually monomorphize the instance body.
This is related to https://github.com/rust-lang/project-stable-mir/issues/36
r? ``@oli-obk``
``@oli-obk`` is that what you were thinking? I incorporated ``@bjorn3`` idea of just adding a Shim instance definition in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116465.
Special case iterator chain checks for suggestion
When encountering method call chains of `Iterator`, check for trailing `;` in the body of closures passed into `Iterator::map`, as well as calls to `<T as Clone>::clone` when `T` is a type param and `T: !Clone`.
Fix#9082.
Add new simpler and more explicit syntax for check-cfg
<details>
<summary>
Old proposition (before the MCP)
</summary>
This PR adds a new simpler and more explicit syntax for check-cfg. It consist of two new form:
- `exhaustive(names, values)`
- `configure(name, "value1", "value2", ... "valueN")`
The preview forms `names(...)` and `values(...)` have implicit meaning that are not strait-forward. In particular `values(foo)`&`values(bar)` and `names(foo, bar)` are not equivalent which has created [some confusions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98080).
Also the `names()` and `values()` form are not clear either and again created some confusions where peoples believed that `values()`&`values(foo)` could be reduced to just `values(foo)`.
To fix that the two new forms are made to be explicit and simpler. See the table of correspondence:
- `names()` -> `exhaustive(names)`
- `values()` -> `exhaustive(values)`
- `names(foo)` -> `exhaustive(names)`&`configure(foo)`
- `values(foo)` -> `configure(foo)`
- `values(feat, "foo", "bar")` -> `configure(feat, "foo", "bar")`
- `values(foo)`&`values(bar)` -> `configure(foo, bar)`
- `names()`&`values()`&`values(my_cfg)` -> `exhaustive(names, values)`&`configure(my_cfg)`
Another benefits of the new syntax is that it allow for further options (like conditional checking for --cfg, currently always on) without syntax change.
The two previous forms are deprecated and will be removed once cargo and beta rustc have the necessary support.
</details>
This PR is the first part of the implementation of [MCP636 - Simplify and improve explicitness of the check-cfg syntax](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/636).
## New `cfg` form
It introduces the new [`cfg` form](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/636) and deprecate the other two:
```
rustc --check-cfg 'cfg(name1, ..., nameN, values("value1", "value2", ... "valueN"))'
```
## Default built-in names and values
It also changes the default for the built-in names and values checking.
- Built-in values checking would always be activated as long as a `--check-cfg` argument is present
- Built-in names checking would always be activated as long as a `--check-cfg` argument is present **unless** if any `cfg(any())` arg is passed
~~**Note: depends on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111068 but is reviewable (last two commits)!**~~
Resolve https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/636
r? `@petrochenkov`
