Following on PR #126502, add `rustc -Zdump-mir-exclude-alloc-bytes`
to tests/mir-opt/dataflow-const-prop/aggregate_copy.rs as well
to skip writing allocation bytes in MIR dumps.
Fixes#126261
Apparently MIR borrowck cares about at least one of these for checking variance.
In runtime MIR, though, there's no need for them as `PtrToPtr` does the same thing.
(Banning them simplifies passes like GVN that no longer need to handle multiple cast possibilities.)
The only non-obvious changes:
- `building/storage_live_dead_in_statics.rs` has a `#[rustfmt::skip]`
attribute to avoid reformating a table of data.
- Two `.mir` files have slight changes involving line numbers.
- In `unusual_item_types.rs` an `EMIT_MIR` annotation is moved to
outside a function, which is the usual spot, because `tidy` complains
if such a comment is indented.
The commit also tweaks the comments in `rustfmt.toml`.
The `mir!` macro has multiple parts:
- An optional return type annotation.
- A sequence of zero or more local declarations.
- A mandatory starting anonymous basic block, which is brace-delimited.
- A sequence of zero of more additional named basic blocks.
Some `mir!` invocations use braces with a "block" style, like so:
```
mir! {
let _unit: ();
{
let non_copy = S(42);
let ptr = std::ptr::addr_of_mut!(non_copy);
// Inside `callee`, the first argument and `*ptr` are basically
// aliasing places!
Call(_unit = callee(Move(*ptr), ptr), ReturnTo(after_call), UnwindContinue())
}
after_call = {
Return()
}
}
```
Some invocations use parens with a "block" style, like so:
```
mir!(
let x: [i32; 2];
let one: i32;
{
x = [42, 43];
one = 1;
x = [one, 2];
RET = Move(x);
Return()
}
)
```
And some invocations uses parens with a "tighter" style, like so:
```
mir!({
SetDiscriminant(*b, 0);
Return()
})
```
This last style is generally used for cases where just the mandatory
starting basic block is present. Its braces are placed next to the
parens.
This commit changes all `mir!` invocations to use braces with a "block"
style. Why?
- Consistency is good.
- The contents of the invocation is a block of code, so it's odd to use
parens. They are more normally used for function-like macros.
- Most importantly, the next commit will enable rustfmt for
`tests/mir-opt/`. rustfmt is more aggressive about formatting macros
that use parens than macros that use braces. Without this commit's
changes, rustfmt would break a couple of `mir!` macro invocations that
use braces within `tests/mir-opt` by inserting an extraneous comma.
E.g.:
```
mir!(type RET = (i32, bool);, { // extraneous comma after ';'
RET.0 = 1;
RET.1 = true;
Return()
})
```
Switching those `mir!` invocations to use braces avoids that problem,
resulting in this, which is nicer to read as well as being valid
syntax:
```
mir! {
type RET = (i32, bool);
{
RET.0 = 1;
RET.1 = true;
Return()
}
}
```
refactor check_{lang,library}_ub: use a single intrinsic
This enacts the plan I laid out [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282#issuecomment-1996917998): use a single intrinsic, called `ub_checks` (in aniticpation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/725), that just exposes the value of `debug_assertions` (consistently implemented in both codegen and the interpreter). Put the language vs library UB logic into the library.
This makes it easier to do something like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282 in the future: that just slightly alters the semantics of `ub_checks` (making it more approximating when crates built with different flags are mixed), but it no longer affects whether these checks can happen in Miri or compile-time.
The first commit just moves things around; I don't think these macros and functions belong into `intrinsics.rs` as they are not intrinsics.
r? `@saethlin`
match lowering: simplify block creation
Match lowering was doing complicated things with block creation. As far as I can tell it was trying to avoid creating unneeded blocks, but of the three places that start out with `otherwise = &mut None`, two of them called `otherwise.unwrap_or_else(|| self.cfg.start_new_block())` anyway. As far as I can tell the only place where this PR makes a difference is in `lower_match_tree`, which did indeed sometimes avoid creating the unreachable final block + FakeRead. Unless this is important I propose we do the naive thing instead.
I have not checked all the graph isomorphisms by hand, but at a glance the test diff looks sensible.
r? `@matthewjasper`
George Bateman