Skip to content

Rollup of 7 pull requests #78998

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
Nov 13, 2020
Merged

Rollup of 7 pull requests #78998

merged 20 commits into from
Nov 13, 2020

Conversation

m-ou-se
Copy link
Member

@m-ou-se m-ou-se commented Nov 12, 2020

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

SkiFire13 and others added 20 commits November 7, 2020 22:20
Co-authored-by: varkor <github@varkor.com>
This matches the capitalization of RiscV
This should fix `rustdoc` rendering of by-value mutable arguments in
`async fn` contexts.
Reusing bindings causes errors later in lowering:

```
 error[E0596]: cannot borrow `vec` as mutable, as it is not declared as mutable
  --> /checkout/src/test/ui/async-await/argument-patterns.rs:12:20
   |
LL | async fn b(n: u32, ref mut vec: A) {
   |                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
   |                    |
   |                    cannot borrow as mutable
   |                    help: consider changing this to be mutable: `mut vec`
```
…nc-fn, r=tmandry

Fix rustdoc rendering of by-value mutable arguments in async fn

r? `@jyn514`

Fixes rust-lang#76517.
…ing, r=petrochenkov

Implement destructuring assignment for structs and slices

This is the second step towards implementing destructuring assignment (RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2909, tracking issue: rust-lang#71126). This PR is the second part of rust-lang#71156, which was split up to allow for easier review.

Note that the first PR (rust-lang#78748) is not merged yet, so it is included as the first commit in this one. I thought this would allow the review to start earlier because I have some time this weekend to respond to reviews. If ``@petrochenkov`` prefers to wait until the first PR is merged, I totally understand, of course.

This PR implements destructuring assignment for (tuple) structs and slices. In order to do this, the following *parser change* was necessary: struct expressions are not required to have a base expression, i.e. `Struct { a: 1, .. }` becomes legal (in order to act like a struct pattern).

Unfortunately, this PR slightly regresses the diagnostics implemented in rust-lang#77283. However, it is only a missing help message in `src/test/ui/issues/issue-77218.rs`. Other instances of this diagnostic are not affected. Since I don't exactly understand how this help message works and how to fix it yet, I was hoping it's OK to regress this temporarily and fix it in a follow-up PR.

Thanks to ``@varkor`` who helped with the implementation, particularly around the struct rest changes.

r? ``@petrochenkov``
Improve BinaryHeap performance

By changing the condition in the loops from `child < end` to `child < end - 1` we're guaranteed that `right = child + 1 < end` and since finding the index of the biggest sibling can be done with an arithmetic operation we can remove a branch from the loop body. The case where there's no right child, i.e. `child == end - 1` is instead handled outside the loop, after it ends; note that if the loops ends early we can use `return` instead of `break` since the check `child == end - 1` will surely fail.

I've also removed a call to `<[T]>::swap` that was hiding a bound check that [wasn't being optimized by LLVM](https://godbolt.org/z/zrhdGM).

A quick benchmarks on my pc shows that the gains are pretty significant:

|name                 |before ns/iter  |after ns/iter  |diff ns/iter  |diff %    |speedup |
|---------------------|----------------|---------------|--------------|----------|--------|
|find_smallest_1000   | 352,565        | 260,098       |     -92,467  | -26.23%  | x 1.36 |
|from_vec             | 676,795        | 473,934       |    -202,861  | -29.97%  | x 1.43 |
|into_sorted_vec      | 469,511        | 304,275       |    -165,236  | -35.19%  | x 1.54 |
|pop                  | 483,198        | 373,778       |    -109,420  | -22.64%  | x 1.29 |

The other 2 benchmarks for `BinaryHeap` (`peek_mut_deref_mut` and `push`) weren't impacted and as such didn't show any significant change.
Add asm register information for SPIR-V

As discussed in [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/182449-t-compiler.2Fhelp/topic/Defining.20asm!.20for.20new.20architecture), we at [rust-gpu](https://github.com/EmbarkStudios/rust-gpu) would like to support `asm!` for our SPIR-V backend. However, we cannot do so purely without frontend support: [this match](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d4ea0b3e46a0303d5802b632e88ba1ba84d9d16f/compiler/rustc_target/src/asm/mod.rs#L185) fails and so `asm!` is not supported ([error reported here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d4ea0b3e46a0303d5802b632e88ba1ba84d9d16f/compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/expr.rs#L1095)). To resolve this, we need to stub out register information for SPIR-V to support getting the `asm!` content all the way to [`AsmBuilderMethods::codegen_inline_asm`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_codegen_ssa/traits/trait.AsmBuilderMethods.html#tymethod.codegen_inline_asm), at which point the rust-gpu backend can do all the parsing and codegen that is needed.

This is a pretty weird PR - adding support for a backend that isn't in-tree feels pretty gross to me, but I don't see an easy way around this. ``@Amanieu`` said I should submit it anyway, so, here we are! Let me know if this needs to go through a more formal process (MCP?) and what I should do to help this along.

I based this off the [wasm asm PR](rust-lang#78684), which unfortunately this PR conflicts with that one quite a bit, sorry for any merge conflict pain :(

---

Some open questions:

- What do we call the register class? Some context, SPIR-V is an SSA-based IR, there are "instructions" that create IDs (referred to as `<id>` in the spec), which can be referenced by other instructions. So, `reg` isn't exactly accurate, they're SSA IDs, not re-assignable registers.
- What happens when a SPIR-V register gets to the LLVM backend? Right now it's a `bug!`, but should that be a `sess.fatal()`? I'm not sure if it's even possible to reach that point, maybe there's a check that prevents the `spirv` target from even reaching that codepath.
…aron1011

update rustfmt to v1.4.25

Contains changes from rust-lang/rustfmt#4507

r? ``@Aaron1011``
Update cargo

5 commits in d5556aeb8405b1fe696adb6e297ad7a1f2989b62..8662ab427a8d6ad8047811cc4d78dbd20dd07699
2020-11-04 22:20:36 +0000 to 2020-11-12 03:47:53 +0000
- Check if rust-src contains a vendor dir, and patch it in (rust-lang/cargo#8834)
- Improve performance of almost fresh builds (rust-lang/cargo#8837)
- Use u32/64::to/from_le_bytes instead of bit fiddling (rust-lang/cargo#8847)
- Avoid constructing an anyhow::Error when not necessary (rust-lang/cargo#8844)
- Skip extracting .cargo-ok files from packages (rust-lang/cargo#8835)
extend min_const_generics param ty tests

Apparently we never tested for `u128` and `i128` before this, so I added a test for all types which are allowed.

r? ``@varkor``
@rustbot rustbot added the rollup A PR which is a rollup label Nov 12, 2020
@m-ou-se
Copy link
Member Author

m-ou-se commented Nov 12, 2020

@bors r+ p=7 rollup=never

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 12, 2020

📌 Commit 38ca6e3 has been approved by m-ou-se

@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Nov 12, 2020
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 12, 2020

⌛ Testing commit 38ca6e3 with merge e80ee05...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 13, 2020

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: m-ou-se
Pushing e80ee05 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Nov 13, 2020
@bors bors merged commit e80ee05 into rust-lang:master Nov 13, 2020
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.49.0 milestone Nov 13, 2020
@bors bors mentioned this pull request Nov 13, 2020
@rylev
Copy link
Member

rylev commented Nov 25, 2020

FYI: there was a small performance regression in this rollup. This is likely due to #78836.

@m-ou-se m-ou-se deleted the rollup-6r4pt9m branch November 25, 2020 10:24
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.