Fix underflow when calculating the number of no-op jumps folded
When removing unwinds to no-op blocks and folding jumps to no-op blocks,
remove the unwind target first. Otherwise we cannot determine if target
has been already folded or not.
Previous implementation incorrectly assumed that all resume targets had
been folded already, occasionally resulting in an underflow:
```
remove_noop_landing_pads: removed 18446744073709551613 jumps and 3 landing pads
```
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #76898 (Record `tcx.def_span` instead of `item.span` in crate metadata)
- #76939 (emit errors during AbstractConst building)
- #76965 (Add cfg(target_has_atomic_equal_alignment) and use it for Atomic::from_mut.)
- #76993 (Changing the alloc() to accept &self instead of &mut self)
- #76994 (fix small typo in docs and comments)
- #77017 (Add missing examples on Vec iter types)
- #77042 (Improve documentation for ToSocketAddrs)
- #77047 (Miri: more informative deallocation error messages)
- #77055 (Add #[track_caller] to more panicking Cell functions)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
MIR pass to remove unneeded drops on types not needing drop
This is heavily dependent on MIR inlining running to actually see the drop statement.
Do we want to special case replacing a call to std::mem::drop with a goto aswell?
SimplifyComparisonIntegral: fix miscompilation
Fixes#76432
Only insert StorageDeads if we actually removed one.
Fixes an issue where we added StorageDead to a place with no StorageLive
r? `@oli-obk`
use if let instead of single match arm expressions
use if let instead of single match arm expressions to compact code and reduce nesting (clippy::single_match)
Use const-checking to forbid use of unstable features in const-stable functions
First step towards #76618.
Currently this code isn't ever hit because `qualify_min_const_fn` runs first and catches pretty much everything. One exception is `const_precise_live_drops`, which does not use the newly added code since it runs as part of a separate pass.
Also contains some unrelated refactoring, which is split into separate commits.
r? @oli-obk
New MIR optimization pass to reduce branches on match of tuples of enums
Fixes#68867 by adding a new pass that turns something like
```rust
let x: Option<()>;
let y: Option<()>;
match (x,y) {
(Some(_), Some(_)) => {0},
_ => {1}
}
```
into something like
```rust
let x: Option<()>;
let y: Option<()>;
let discriminant_x = // get discriminant of x
let discriminant_y = // get discriminant of x
if discriminant_x != discriminant_y {1} else {0}
```
The opt-diffs still have the old basic blocks like
```
bb3: {
_8 = discriminant((*(_4.1: &ViewportPercentageLength))); // scope 0 at $DIR/early-otherwise-branch-68867.rs:21:21: 21:30
switchInt(move _8) -> [1_isize: bb7, otherwise: bb2]; // scope 0 at $DIR/early-otherwise-branch-68867.rs:21:21: 21:30
}
bb4: {
_9 = discriminant((*(_4.1: &ViewportPercentageLength))); // scope 0 at $DIR/early-otherwise-branch-68867.rs:22:23: 22:34
switchInt(move _9) -> [2_isize: bb8, otherwise: bb2]; // scope 0 at $DIR/early-otherwise-branch-68867.rs:22:23: 22:34
}
bb5: {
_10 = discriminant((*(_4.1: &ViewportPercentageLength))); // scope 0 at $DIR/early-otherwise-branch-68867.rs:23:23: 23:34
switchInt(move _10) -> [3_isize: bb9, otherwise: bb2]; // scope 0 at $DIR/early-otherwise-branch-68867.rs:23:23: 23:34
}
```
These do get removed on later passes. I'm not sure if I should include those passes in the test to make it clear?
