atomic_load intrinsic: use const generic parameter for ordering
We have a gazillion intrinsics for the atomics because we encode the ordering into the intrinsic name rather than making it a parameter. This is particularly bad for those operations that take two orderings. Let's fix that!
This PR only converts `load`, to see if there's any feedback that would fundamentally change the strategy we pursue for the const generic intrinsics.
The first two commits are preparation and could be a separate PR if you prefer.
`@BoxyUwU` -- I hope this is a use of const generics that is unlikely to explode? All we need is a const generic of enum type. We could funnel it through an integer if we had to but an enum is obviously nicer...
`@bjorn3` it seems like the cranelift backend entirely ignores the ordering?
There is no safety contract and I don't think any of them can actually
cause UB in more ways than passing malicious source code to rustc can.
While LtoModuleCodegen::optimize says that the returned ModuleCodegen
points into the LTO module, the LTO module has already been dropped by
the time this function returns, so if the returned ModuleCodegen indeed
points into the LTO module, we would have seen crashes on every LTO
compilation, which we don't. As such the comment is outdated.
- Rename `USED` to `USED_COMPILER` to better reflect its behavior.
- Reorder some items to group the used and allocator flags together
- Renumber them without gaps
make `rustc_attr_parsing` less dominant in the rustc crate graph
It has/had a glob re-export of `rustc_attr_data_structures`, which is a crate much lower in the graph, and a lot of crates were using it *just* (or *mostly*) for that re-export, while they can rely on `rustc_attr_data_structures` directly.
Previous graph:
Graph with this PR:
The first commit keeps the re-export, and just changes the dependency if possible. The second commit is the "breaking change" which removes the re-export, and "explicitly" adds the `rustc_attr_data_structures` dependency where needed. It also switches over some src/tools/*.
The second commit is actually a lot more involved than I expected. Please let me know if it's a better idea to back it out and just keep the first commit.
