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`
Currently we always do this:
```
use rustc_fluent_macro::fluent_messages;
...
fluent_messages! { "./example.ftl" }
```
But there is no need, we can just do this everywhere:
```
rustc_fluent_macro::fluent_messages! { "./example.ftl" }
```
which is shorter.
The `fluent_messages!` macro produces uses of
`crate::{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage`, which means that every crate using
the macro must have this import:
```
use rustc_errors::{DiagnosticMessage, SubdiagnosticMessage};
```
This commit changes the macro to instead use
`rustc_errors::{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage`, which avoids the need for the
imports.
See through aggregates in GVN
This PR is extracted from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111344
The first 2 commit are cleanups to avoid repeated work. I propose to stop removing useless assignments as part of this pass, and let a later `SimplifyLocals` do it. This makes tests easier to read (among others).
The next 3 commits add a constant folding mechanism to the GVN pass, presented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116012. ~This pass is designed to only use global allocations, to avoid any risk of accidental modification of the stored state.~
The following commits implement opportunistic simplifications, in particular:
- projections of aggregates: `MyStruct { x: a }.x` gets replaced by `a`, works with enums too;
- projections of arrays: `[a, b][0]` becomes `a`;
- projections of repeat expressions: `[a; N][x]` becomes `a`;
- transform arrays of equal operands into a repeat rvalue.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/3090
r? `@oli-obk`
Do not check for impossible predicates in const-prop lint.
The enclosing query already checks for them, and replaces the body with a single `unreachable` if they are indeed impossible.
rename mir::Constant -> mir::ConstOperand, mir::ConstKind -> mir::Const
Also, be more consistent with the `to/eval_bits` methods... we had some that take a type and some that take a size, and then sometimes the one that takes a type is called `bits_for_ty`.
Turns out that `ty::Const`/`mir::ConstKind` carry their type with them, so we don't need to even pass the type to those `eval_bits` functions at all.
However this is not properly consistent yet: in `ty` we have most of the methods on `ty::Const`, but in `mir` we have them on `mir::ConstKind`. And indeed those two types are the ones that correspond to each other. So `mir::ConstantKind` should actually be renamed to `mir::Const`. But what to do with `mir::Constant`? It carries around a span, that's really more like a constant operand that appears as a MIR operand... it's more suited for `syntax.rs` than `consts.rs`, but the bigger question is, which name should it get if we want to align the `mir` and `ty` types? `ConstOperand`? `ConstOp`? `Literal`? It's not a literal but it has a field called `literal` so it would at least be consistently wrong-ish...
``@oli-obk`` any ideas?
Make module inner and function run_analysis_to_runtime_passes in
rustc_mir_transform public to allow re-implementing the query from the
rust compiler interface.
Make `unconditional_recursion` warning detect recursive drops
Closes#55388
Also closes#50049 unless we want to keep it for the second example which this PR does not solve, but I think it is better to track that work in #57965.
r? `@oli-obk` since you are the mentor for #55388
Unresolved questions:
- [x] There are two false positives that must be fixed before merging (see diff). I suspect the best way to solve them is to perform analysis after drop elaboration instead of before, as now, but I have not explored that any further yet. Could that be an option? **Answer:** Yes, that solved the problem.
`@rustbot` label +T-compiler +C-enhancement +A-lint
