In 126578 we ended up with more binary size increases than expected.
This change attempts to avoid inlining large things into small things, to avoid that kind of increase, in cases when top-down inlining will still be able to do that inlining later.
These things don't need to be `Vec`s; boxed slices are enough.
The frequent one here is call arguments, but MIR building knows the number of arguments from the THIR, so the collect is always getting the allocation right in the first place, and thus this shouldn't ever add the shrink-in-place overhead.
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.
Add simple async drop glue generation
This is a prototype of the async drop glue generation for some simple types. Async drop glue is intended to behave very similar to the regular drop glue except for being asynchronous. Currently it does not execute synchronous drops but only calls user implementations of `AsyncDrop::async_drop` associative function and awaits the returned future. It is not complete as it only recurses into arrays, slices, tuples, and structs and does not have same sensible restrictions as the old `Drop` trait implementation like having the same bounds as the type definition, while code assumes their existence (requires a future work).
This current design uses a workaround as it does not create any custom async destructor state machine types for ADTs, but instead uses types defined in the std library called future combinators (deferred_async_drop, chain, ready_unit).
Also I recommend reading my [explainer](https://zetanumbers.github.io/book/async-drop-design.html).
This is a part of the [MCP: Low level components for async drop](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/727) work.
Feature completeness:
- [x] `AsyncDrop` trait
- [ ] `async_drop_in_place_raw`/async drop glue generation support for
- [x] Trivially destructible types (integers, bools, floats, string slices, pointers, references, etc.)
- [x] Arrays and slices (array pointer is unsized into slice pointer)
- [x] ADTs (enums, structs, unions)
- [x] tuple-like types (tuples, closures)
- [ ] Dynamic types (`dyn Trait`, see explainer's [proposed design](https://github.com/zetanumbers/posts/blob/main/async-drop-design.md#async-drop-glue-for-dyn-trait))
- [ ] coroutines (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123948)
- [x] Async drop glue includes sync drop glue code
- [x] Cleanup branch generation for `async_drop_in_place_raw`
- [ ] Union rejects non-trivially async destructible fields
- [ ] `AsyncDrop` implementation requires same bounds as type definition
- [ ] Skip trivially destructible fields (optimization)
- [ ] New [`TyKind::AdtAsyncDestructor`](https://github.com/zetanumbers/posts/blob/main/async-drop-design.md#adt-async-destructor-types) and get rid of combinators
- [ ] [Synchronously undroppable types](https://github.com/zetanumbers/posts/blob/main/async-drop-design.md#exclusively-async-drop)
- [ ] Automatic async drop at the end of the scope in async context
Cleanup: Rename `HAS_PROJECTIONS` to `HAS_ALIASES` etc.
The name of the bitflag `HAS_PROJECTIONS` and of its corresponding method `has_projections` is quite historical dating back to a time when projections were the only kind of alias type.
I think it's time to update it to clear up any potential confusion for newcomers and to reduce unnecessary friction during contributor onboarding.
r? types
KCFI needs to be able to tell which kind of `ReifyShim` it is examining
in order to decide whether to use a concrete type (`FnPtr` case) or an
abstract case (`Vtable` case). You can *almost* tell this from context,
but there is one case where you can't - if a trait has a method which is
*not* `#[track_caller]`, with an impl that *is* `#[track_caller]`, both
the vtable and a function pointer created from that method will be
`ReifyShim(def_id)`.
Currently, the reason is optional to ensure no additional unique
`ReifyShim`s are added without KCFI on. However, the case in which an
extra `ReifyShim` is created is sufficiently rare that this may be worth
revisiting to reduce complexity.
Add asm goto support to `asm!`
Tracking issue: #119364
This PR implements asm-goto support, using the syntax described in "future possibilities" section of [RFC2873](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2873-inline-asm.html#asm-goto).
Currently I have only implemented the `label` part, not the `fallthrough` part (i.e. fallthrough is implicit). This doesn't reduce the expressive though, since you can use label-break to get arbitrary control flow or simply set a value and rely on jump threading optimisation to get the desired control flow. I can add that later if deemed necessary.
r? ``@Amanieu``
cc ``@ojeda``
This change was prompted by the stage1 compiler spending 4% of its time
when compiling the polymorphic-recursion MIR opt test in `unlikely`.
Intrinsic fallback bodies like `unlikely` should always be inlined, it's
very silly if they are not. To do this, we enable the fallback bodies to
be cross-crate inlineable. Not that this matters for our workloads since
the compiler never actually _uses_ the "fallback bodies", it just uses
whatever was cfg(bootstrap)ped, so I've also added `#[inline]` to those.
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.
Inlining creates additional statements to be executed along the return
edge: an assignment to the destination, storage end for temporaries.
Previously those statements where inserted directly into a call target,
but this is incorrect when the target has other predecessors.
Avoid the issue by creating a new dedicated block for those statements.
When the block happens to be redundant it will be removed by CFG
simplification that follows inlining.
Fixes#117355
In general it is not correct to inline a callee with a target features
that are subset of the callee. Require target features to match exactly
during inlining.
The exact match could be potentially relaxed, but this would require
identifying specific feature that are allowed to differ, those that need
to match, and those that can be present in caller but not in callee.
This resolves MIR part of #116573. For other concerns with respect to
the previous implementation also see areInlineCompatible in LLVM.
