Currently, we assume that ScalarPair is always represented using
a two-element struct, both as an immediate value and when stored
in memory.
This currently works fairly well, but runs into problems with
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116672, where a ScalarPair
involving an i128 type can no longer be represented as a two-element
struct in memory. For example, the tuple `(i32, i128)` needs to be
represented in-memory as `{ i32, [3 x i32], i128 }` to satisfy
alignment requirement. Using `{ i32, i128 }` instead will result in
the second element being stored at the wrong offset (prior to
LLVM 18).
Resolve this issue by no longer requiring that the immediate and
in-memory type for ScalarPair are the same. The in-memory type
will now look the same as for normal struct types (and will include
padding filler and similar), while the immediate type stays a
simple two-element struct type. This also means that booleans in
immediate ScalarPair are now represented as i1 rather than i8,
just like we do everywhere else.
The core change here is to llvm_type (which now treats ScalarPair
as a normal struct) and immediate_llvm_type (which returns the
two-element struct that llvm_type used to produce). The rest is
fixing things up to no longer assume these are the same. In
particular, this switches places that try to get pointers to the
ScalarPair elements to use byte-geps instead of struct-geps.
detects redundant imports that can be eliminated.
for #117772 :
In order to facilitate review and modification, split the checking code and
removing redundant imports code into two PR.
As experimentation in 115242 has shown looks better than `coldcc`.
And *don't* use a different convention for cold on Windows, because that actually ends up making things worse.
cc tracking issue 97544
Similar to prior support added for the mips430, avr, and x86 targets
this change implements the rough equivalent of clang's
[`__attribute__((interrupt))`][clang-attr] for riscv targets, enabling
e.g.
```rust
static mut CNT: usize = 0;
pub extern "riscv-interrupt-m" fn isr_m() {
unsafe {
CNT += 1;
}
}
```
to produce highly effective assembly like:
```asm
pub extern "riscv-interrupt-m" fn isr_m() {
420003a0: 1141 addi sp,sp,-16
unsafe {
CNT += 1;
420003a2: c62a sw a0,12(sp)
420003a4: c42e sw a1,8(sp)
420003a6: 3fc80537 lui a0,0x3fc80
420003aa: 63c52583 lw a1,1596(a0) # 3fc8063c <_ZN12esp_riscv_rt3CNT17hcec3e3a214887d53E.0>
420003ae: 0585 addi a1,a1,1
420003b0: 62b52e23 sw a1,1596(a0)
}
}
420003b4: 4532 lw a0,12(sp)
420003b6: 45a2 lw a1,8(sp)
420003b8: 0141 addi sp,sp,16
420003ba: 30200073 mret
```
(disassembly via `riscv64-unknown-elf-objdump -C -S --disassemble ./esp32c3-hal/target/riscv32imc-unknown-none-elf/release/examples/gpio_interrupt`)
This outcome is superior to hand-coded interrupt routines which, lacking
visibility into any non-assembly body of the interrupt handler, have to
be very conservative and save the [entire CPU state to the stack
frame][full-frame-save]. By instead asking LLVM to only save the
registers that it uses, we defer the decision to the tool with the best
context: it can more accurately account for the cost of spills if it
knows that every additional register used is already at the cost of an
implicit spill.
At the LLVM level, this is apparently [implemented by] marking every
register as "[callee-save]," matching the semantics of an interrupt
handler nicely (it has to leave the CPU state just as it found it after
its `{m|s}ret`).
This approach is not suitable for every interrupt handler, as it makes
no attempt to e.g. save the state in a user-accessible stack frame. For
a full discussion of those challenges and tradeoffs, please refer to
[the interrupt calling conventions RFC][rfc].
Inside rustc, this implementation differs from prior art because LLVM
does not expose the "all-saved" function flavor as a calling convention
directly, instead preferring to use an attribute that allows for
differentiating between "machine-mode" and "superivsor-mode" interrupts.
Finally, some effort has been made to guide those who may not yet be
aware of the differences between machine-mode and supervisor-mode
interrupts as to why no `riscv-interrupt` calling convention is exposed
through rustc, and similarly for why `riscv-interrupt-u` makes no
appearance (as it would complicate future LLVM upgrades).
[clang-attr]: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#interrupt-risc-v
[full-frame-save]: 9281af2ecf/src/lib.rs (L440-L469)
[implemented by]: b7fb2a3fec/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVRegisterInfo.cpp (L61-L67)
[callee-save]: 973f1fe7a8/llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVCallingConv.td (L30-L37)
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3246
This commit is aimed at making compiler generated entry functions
(Basically just C `main` right now) more generic so other targets can do
similar things for custom entry. This was initially implemented as part
of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100316.
Currently, this moves the entry function name and Call convention to the
target spec.
Signed-off-by: Ayush Singh <ayushsingh1325@gmail.com>
Currently they try to be very precise. But they are wrong, i.e. they
don't match what's happening in the loop below. This code isn't hot
enough for it to matter that much.
Because `PassMode::Cast` is by far the largest variant, but is
relatively rare.
This requires making `PassMode` not impl `Copy`, and `Clone` is no
longer necessary. This causes lots of sigil adjusting, but nothing very
notable.
Main motivation: Fixes some issues with the current behavior. This PR is
more-or-less completely re-implementing the unused_unsafe lint; it’s also only
done in the MIR-version of the lint, the set of tests for the `-Zthir-unsafeck`
version no longer succeeds (and is thus disabled, see `lint-unused-unsafe.rs`).
On current nightly,
```rs
unsafe fn unsf() {}
fn inner_ignored() {
unsafe {
#[allow(unused_unsafe)]
unsafe {
unsf()
}
}
}
```
doesn’t create any warnings. This situation is not unrealistic to come by, the
inner `unsafe` block could e.g. come from a macro. Actually, this PR even
includes removal of one unused `unsafe` in the standard library that was missed
in a similar situation. (The inner `unsafe` coming from an external macro hides
the warning, too.)
The reason behind this problem is how the check currently works:
* While generating MIR, it already skips nested unsafe blocks (i.e. unsafe
nested in other unsafe) so that the inner one is always the one considered
unused
* To differentiate the cases of no unsafe operations inside the `unsafe` vs.
a surrounding `unsafe` block, there’s some ad-hoc magic walking up the HIR to
look for surrounding used `unsafe` blocks.
There’s a lot of problems with this approach besides the one presented above.
E.g. the MIR-building uses checks for `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint to decide
early whether or not `unsafe` blocks in an `unsafe fn` are redundant and ought
to be removed.
```rs
unsafe fn granular_disallow_op_in_unsafe_fn() {
unsafe {
#[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
{
unsf();
}
}
}
```
```
error: call to unsafe function is unsafe and requires unsafe block (error E0133)
--> src/main.rs:13:13
|
13 | unsf();
| ^^^^^^ call to unsafe function
|
note: the lint level is defined here
--> src/main.rs:11:16
|
11 | #[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: consult the function's documentation for information on how to avoid undefined behavior
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:5
|
9 | unsafe fn granular_disallow_op_in_unsafe_fn() {
| --------------------------------------------- because it's nested under this `unsafe` fn
10 | unsafe {
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
```
Here, the intermediate `unsafe` was ignored, even though it contains a unsafe
operation that is not allowed to happen in an `unsafe fn` without an additional `unsafe` block.
Also closures were problematic and the workaround/algorithms used on current
nightly didn’t work properly. (I skipped trying to fully understand what it was
supposed to do, because this PR uses a completely different approach.)
```rs
fn nested() {
unsafe {
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
```
vs
```rs
fn nested() {
let _ = || unsafe {
let _ = || unsafe { unsf() };
};
}
```
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:9:16
|
9 | let _ = || unsafe {
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:20
|
10 | let _ = || unsafe { unsf() };
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
*note that this warning kind-of suggests that **both** unsafe blocks are redundant*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also dislike the fact that it always suggests keeping the outermost `unsafe`.
E.g. for
```rs
fn granularity() {
unsafe {
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
I prefer if `rustc` suggests removing the more-course outer-level `unsafe`
instead of the fine-grained inner `unsafe` blocks, which it currently does on nightly:
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:11:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
11 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:12:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
12 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Needless to say, this PR addresses all these points. For context, as far as my
understanding goes, the main advantage of skipping inner unsafe blocks was that
a test case like
```rs
fn top_level_used() {
unsafe {
unsf();
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
should generate some warning because there’s redundant nested `unsafe`, however
every single `unsafe` block _does_ contain some statement that uses it. Of course
this PR doesn’t aim change the warnings on this kind of code example, because
the current behavior, warning on all the inner `unsafe` blocks, makes sense in this case.
As mentioned, during MIR building all the unsafe blocks *are* kept now, and usage
is attributed to them. The way to still generate a warning like
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:11:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsf();
11 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:12:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
12 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:13:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
13 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
in this case is by emitting a `unused_unsafe` warning for all of the `unsafe`
blocks that are _within a **used** unsafe block_.
The previous code had a little HIR traversal already anyways to collect a set of
all the unsafe blocks (in order to afterwards determine which ones are unused
afterwards). This PR uses such a traversal to do additional things including logic
like _always_ warn for an `unsafe` block that’s inside of another **used**
unsafe block. The traversal is expanded to include nested closures in the same go,
this simplifies a lot of things.
The whole logic around `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` is a little complicated, there’s
some test cases of corner-cases in this PR. (The implementation involves
differentiating between whether a used unsafe block was used exclusively by
operations where `allow(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)` was active.) The main goal was
to make sure that code should compile successfully if all the `unused_unsafe`-warnings
are addressed _simultaneously_ (by removing the respective `unsafe` blocks)
no matter how complicated the patterns of `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` being
disallowed and allowed throughout the function are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One noteworthy design decision I took here: An `unsafe` block
with `allow(unused_unsafe)` **is considered used** for the purposes of
linting about redundant contained unsafe blocks. So while
```rs
fn granularity() {
unsafe { //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
warns for the outer `unsafe` block,
```rs
fn top_level_ignored() {
#[allow(unused_unsafe)]
unsafe {
#[deny(unused_unsafe)]
{
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
}
}
}
```
warns on the inner ones.
This should provide a small perf improvement for debug builds,
and should more than cancel out the regression from adding noundef,
which was only significant in debug builds.
This doesn't handle `char` because it's a bit awkward to distinguish it
from u32 at this point in codegen.
Note that for some types (like `&Struct` and `&mut Struct`),
we already apply `dereferenceable`, which implies `noundef`,
so the IR does not change.
