Turn copy into moves during DSE.
Dead store elimination computes whether removing a direct store to an unborrowed place is allowed.
Where removing a store is allowed, writing `uninit` is too.
This means that we can use this pass to transform `copy` operands into `move` operands. This is only interesting in call terminators, so we only handle those.
Special care is taken for the `use_both(_1, _1)` case:
- moving the second argument is ok, as `_1` is not live after the call;
- moving the first argument is not, as the second argument reads `_1`.
Fixes#75993
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108068
r? `@RalfJung`
cc `@JakobDegen`
Resurrect: rustc_target: Add alignment to indirectly-passed by-value types, correcting the alignment of byval on x86 in the process.
Same as #111551, which I [accidentally closed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111551#issuecomment-1571222612) :/
---
This resurrects PR #103830, which has sat idle for a while.
Beyond #103830, this also:
- fixes byval alignment for types containing vectors on Darwin (see `tests/codegen/align-byval-vector.rs`)
- fixes byval alignment for overaligned types on x86 Windows (see `tests/codegen/align-byval.rs`)
- fixes ABI for types with 128bit requested alignment on ARM64 Linux (see `tests/codegen/aarch64-struct-align-128.rs`)
r? `@nikic`
---
`@pcwalton's` original PR description is reproduced below:
Commit 88e4d2c from five years ago removed
support for alignment on indirectly-passed arguments because of problems with
the `i686-pc-windows-msvc` target. Unfortunately, the `memcpy` optimizations I
recently added to LLVM 16 depend on this to forward `memcpy`s. This commit
attempts to fix the problems with `byval` parameters on that target and now
correctly adds the `align` attribute.
The problem is summarized in [this comment] by `@eddyb.` Briefly, 32-bit x86 has
special alignment rules for `byval` parameters: for the most part, their
alignment is forced to 4. This is not well-documented anywhere but in the Clang
source. I looked at the logic in Clang `TargetInfo.cpp` and tried to replicate
it here. The relevant methods in that file are
`X86_32ABIInfo::getIndirectResult()` and
`X86_32ABIInfo::getTypeStackAlignInBytes()`. The `align` parameter attribute
for `byval` parameters in LLVM must match the platform ABI, or miscompilations
will occur. Note that this doesn't use the approach suggested by eddyb, because
I felt it was overkill to store the alignment in `on_stack` when special
handling is really only needed for 32-bit x86.
As a side effect, this should fix#80127, because it will make the `align`
parameter attribute for `byval` parameters match the platform ABI on LLVM
x86-64.
[this comment]: #80822 (comment)
alignment of `byval` on x86 in the process.
Commit 88e4d2c291 from five years ago removed
support for alignment on indirectly-passed arguments because of problems with
the `i686-pc-windows-msvc` target. Unfortunately, the `memcpy` optimizations I
recently added to LLVM 16 depend on this to forward `memcpy`s. This commit
attempts to fix the problems with `byval` parameters on that target and now
correctly adds the `align` attribute.
The problem is summarized in [this comment] by @eddyb. Briefly, 32-bit x86 has
special alignment rules for `byval` parameters: for the most part, their
alignment is forced to 4. This is not well-documented anywhere but in the Clang
source. I looked at the logic in Clang `TargetInfo.cpp` and tried to replicate
it here. The relevant methods in that file are
`X86_32ABIInfo::getIndirectResult()` and
`X86_32ABIInfo::getTypeStackAlignInBytes()`. The `align` parameter attribute
for `byval` parameters in LLVM must match the platform ABI, or miscompilations
will occur. Note that this doesn't use the approach suggested by eddyb, because
I felt it was overkill to store the alignment in `on_stack` when special
handling is really only needed for 32-bit x86.
As a side effect, this should fix#80127, because it will make the `align`
parameter attribute for `byval` parameters match the platform ABI on LLVM
x86-64.
[this comment]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80822#issuecomment-829985417
Add Tests for native wasm exceptions
### Motivation
In PR #111322, I added support for native WASM exceptions. I was asked by ``@davidtwco`` to add some tests for it in a follow up PR, which seems like a very good idea.
This PR adds three tests for this feature:
* codegen: ensure the correct LLVM instructions are used
* assembly: ensure the correct WASM instructions are used
* run-make: ensure the exception handling works; the WASM code is run using a small nodejs script which demonstrates the exception handling
### Complications
There are a few changes beside adding the tests, which were necessary
* Tests for the wasm32-unknown-unknown target are (as far as I know) only run on `test-various`. Its docker image uses nodejs-15, which is very old. Experimental support for wasm-exceptions was added in nodejs16. In nodejs 18.12 (LTS), they are stable.
- --> increase nodejs to 18.12 in `test-various`
* codegen/assembly tests are not performed for the wasm32-unknown-unknown target yet
- --> add those to `test-various` as well
Due to the last point, some tests are run which have not run before (assembly+codegen tests for wasm32-unknown-unknown). I added `// ignore wasm32-bare` for those which failed
### Local testing
I run all tests locally using both `test-various` and `wasm32`. As far as I know, none of the other systems run any test for wasm32 targets.
Various impl trait in assoc tys cleanups
r? `@compiler-errors`
All commits except for the last are pure refactorings. 274dab5bd658c97886a8987340bf50ae57900c39 allows struct fields to participate in deciding whether a function has an opaque in its signature.
best reviewed commit by commit
[libs] Simplify `unchecked_{shl,shr}`
There's no need for the `const_eval_select` dance here. And while I originally wrote the `.try_into().unwrap_unchecked()` implementation here, it's kinda a mess in MIR -- this new one is substantially simpler, as shown by the old one being above the inlining threshold but the new one being below it in the `mir-opt/inline/unchecked_shifts` tests.
We don't need `u32::checked_shl` doing a dance through both `Result` *and* `Option` 🙃
There's no need for the `const_eval_select` dance here. And while I originally wrote the `.try_into().unwrap_unchecked()` implementation here, it's kinda a mess in MIR -- this new one is substantially simpler, as shown by the old one being above the inlining threshold but the new one being below it.
