Require target features to match exactly during inlining
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.
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.
Separate move path tracking between borrowck and drop elaboration.
The primary goal of this PR is to skip creating a `MovePathIndex` for path that do not need dropping in drop elaboration.
The 2 first commits are cleanups.
The next 2 commits displace `move` errors from move-path builder to borrowck. Move-path builder keeps the same logic, but does not carry error information any more.
The remaining commits allow to filter `MovePathIndex` creation according to types. This is used in drop elaboration, to avoid computing dataflow for paths that do not need dropping.
Implement jump threading MIR opt
This pass is an attempt to generalize `ConstGoto` and `SeparateConstSwitch` passes into a more complete jump threading pass.
This pass is rather heavy, as it performs a truncated backwards DFS on MIR starting from each `SwitchInt` terminator. This backwards DFS remains very limited, as it only walks through `Goto` terminators.
It is build to support constants and discriminants, and a propagating through a very limited set of operations.
The pass successfully manages to disentangle the `Some(x?)` use case and the DFA use case. It still needs a few tests before being ready.
coverage: Fix inconsistent handling of function signature spans
While doing some more cleanup of `spans`, I noticed a strange inconsistency in how function signatures are handled. Normally the function signature span is treated as though it were executable as part of the start of the function, but in some cases the signature span disappears entirely from coverage, for no obvious reason.
This is caused by the fact that spans created by `CoverageSpan::for_fn_sig` don't add the span to their `merged_spans` field (unlike normal statement/terminator spans). In cases where the span-processing code looks at those merged spans, it thinks the signature span is no longer visible and deletes it.
Adding the signature span to `merged_spans` resolves the inconsistency.
(Prior to #116409 this wouldn't have been possible, because there was no case in the old `CoverageStatement` enum representing a signature. Now that `merged_spans` is just a list of spans, that's no longer an obstacle.)
Camille GILLOT