core: avoid `extern type`s in formatting infrastructure
```@RalfJung``` [said](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Use.20of.20.60extern.20type.60.20in.20formatting.20machinery/near/446552837):
>How attached are y'all to using `extern type` in the formatting machinery?
Seems like this was introduced a [long time ago](34ef8f5441). However, it's also [not really compatible with Stacked Borrows](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/256), and only works currently because we effectively treat references-to-extern-type almost like raw pointers in Stacked Borrows -- which of course is unsound, it's not how LLVM works. I was planning to make Miri emit a warning when this happens to avoid cases like [this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126814#issuecomment-2183816373) where people use extern type specifically to silence Miri without realizing what happens. but with the formatting machinery using extern type, this warning would just show up everywhere...
>
> The "proper" way to do this in Stacked Borrows is to use raw pointers (or `NonNull`).
This PR does just that.
r? ```@RalfJung```
coverage: Make `#[coverage(..)]` apply recursively to nested functions
This PR makes the (currently-unstable) `#[coverage(off)]` and `#[coverage(on)]` attributes apply recursively to all nested functions/closures, instead of just the function they are directly attached to.
Those attributes can now also be applied to modules and to impl/impl-trait blocks, where they have no direct effect, but will be inherited by all enclosed functions/closures/methods that don't override the inherited value.
---
Fixes#126625.
Stabilise `c_unwind`
Fix#74990Fix#115285 (that's also where FCP is happening)
Marking as draft PR for now due to `compiler_builtins` issues
r? `@Amanieu`
MCDC Coverage: instrument last boolean RHS operands from condition coverage
Fresh PR from #124652
--
This PR ensures that the top-level boolean expressions that are not part of the control flow are correctly instrumented thanks to condition coverage.
See discussion on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124120.
Depends on `@Zalathar` 's condition coverage implementation #125756.
More thorough status-quo tests for `#[coverage(..)]`
In light of the stabilization push at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84605#issuecomment-2166514660, I have written some tests to more thoroughly capture the current behaviour of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute.
These tests aim to capture the *current* behaviour, which is not necessarily the desired behaviour. For example, some of the error message are not great, some things that perhaps ought to cause an error do not, and recursive coverage attributes have not been implemented yet.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
When set, this flag skips the code that normally extracts coverage spans from
MIR statements and terminators. That sometimes makes it easier to debug branch
coverage and MC/DC coverage, because the coverage output is less noisy.
For internal debugging only. If other code changes would make it hard to keep
supporting this flag, remove it.
As more and more of the span refiner's functionality has been pulled out into
separate early passes, it has finally reached the point where we can remove the
rest of the old `SpansRefiner` code, and replace it with a single
modestly-sized function.
When a lazy logical operator (`&&` or `||`) occurs outside of an `if`
condition, it normally doesn't have any associated control-flow branch, so we
don't have an existing way to track whether it was true or false.
This patch adds special code to handle this case, by inserting extra MIR blocks
in a diamond shape after evaluating the RHS. This gives us a place to insert
the appropriate marker statements, which can then be given their own counters.
coverage: Avoid overflow when the MC/DC condition limit is exceeded
Fix for the test failure seen in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124571#issuecomment-2099620869.
If we perform this subtraction first, it can sometimes overflow to -1 before the addition can bring its value back to 0.
That behaviour seems to be benign, but it nevertheless causes test failures in compiler configurations that check for overflow.
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
Currently we can't automatically enforce formatting on tests (see #125637), but
we can at least keep things relatively tidy by occasionally running the
formatter manually.
This was done by temporarily commenting out the `"/tests/"` exclusion in
`rustfmt.toml`, and then running `x fmt tests/coverage` and
`x test coverage --bless`.
For coverage tests, splitting code across multiple lines often makes the
resulting coverage report easier to interpret, so we force rustfmt to retain
line breaks by adding dummy line comments with `//`.
Some of these cases currently don't occur in practice, but are included for
completeness, and to avoid having to add them later as branch coverage and
MC/DC coverage start building more complex expressions.
coverage: Branch coverage support for let-else and if-let
This PR adds branch coverage instrumentation for let-else and if-let, including let-chains.
This lifts two of the limitations listed at #124118.
Account for immutably borrowed locals in MIR copy-prop and GVN
For the most part, we consider that immutably borrowed `Freeze` locals still fulfill SSA conditions. As the borrow is immutable, any use of the local will have the value given by the single assignment, and there can be no surprise.
This allows copy-prop to merge a non-borrowed local with a borrowed local. We chose to keep copy-classes heads unborrowed, as those may be easier to optimize in later passes.
This also allows to GVN the value behind an immutable borrow. If a SSA local is borrowed, dereferencing that borrow is equivalent to copying the local's value: re-executing the assignment between the borrow and the dereference would be UB.
r? `@ghost` for perf
MCDC coverage: support nested decision coverage
#123409 provided the initial MCDC coverage implementation.
As referenced in #124144, it does not currently support "nested" decisions, like the following example :
```rust
fn nested_if_in_condition(a: bool, b: bool, c: bool) {
if a && if b || c { true } else { false } {
say("yes");
} else {
say("no");
}
}
```
Note that there is an if-expression (`if b || c ...`) embedded inside a boolean expression in the decision of an outer if-expression.
This PR proposes a workaround for this cases, by introducing a Decision context stack, and by handing several `temporary condition bitmaps` instead of just one.
When instrumenting boolean expressions, if the current node is a leaf condition (i.e. not a `||`/`&&` logical operator nor a `!` not operator), we insert a new decision context, such that if there are more boolean expressions inside the condition, they are handled as separate expressions.
On the codegen LLVM side, we allocate as many `temp_cond_bitmap`s as necessary to handle the maximum encountered decision depth.
coverage: Branch coverage tests for lazy boolean operators
The current branch coverage implementation already supports the `&&` and `||` operators (even outside of an `if` condition), as a natural consequence of how they are desugared/lowered, but we didn't have any specific tests for them. This PR adds some appropriate tests.
I've also moved the existing branch coverage tests into a `coverage/branch` subdirectory, so that they don't become unwieldy as I add more branch coverage tests.
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
These assertions detect situations where a BCB node would have both a physical
counter and one or more in-edge counters/expressions.
For most BCBs that situation would indicate an implementation bug. However,
it's perfectly fine in the case of a BCB having an edge that loops back to
itself.
Given the complexity and risk involved in fixing the assertions, and the fact
that nothing relies on them actually being true, this patch just removes them
instead.
Zalathar