Remove unneeded `FunctionCx` from some codegen methods by scottmcm · Pull Request #142324 · rust-lang/rust (original) (raw)

New issue

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

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Conversation3 Commits1 Checks9 Files changed

Conversation

This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters

[ Show hidden characters]({{ revealButtonHref }})

No changes; just removing the self that wasn't needed.

r? workingjubilee
cc #138759 (comment)

No changes; just removing the self that wasn't needed.

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review

Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.

T-compiler

Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

labels

Jun 10, 2025

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa

cc @WaffleLapkin

Thank you!

@bors r+ rollup

📌 Commit ed06f36 has been approved by workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors added S-waiting-on-bors

Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.

and removed S-waiting-on-review

Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.

labels

Jun 11, 2025

workingjubilee added a commit to workingjubilee/rustc that referenced this pull request

Jun 11, 2025

…gjubilee

Remove unneeded FunctionCx from some codegen methods

No changes; just removing the self that wasn't needed.

r? workingjubilee cc rust-lang#138759 (comment)

workingjubilee added a commit to workingjubilee/rustc that referenced this pull request

Jun 11, 2025

…gjubilee

Remove unneeded FunctionCx from some codegen methods

No changes; just removing the self that wasn't needed.

r? workingjubilee cc rust-lang#138759 (comment)

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request

Jun 11, 2025

Rollup of 13 pull requests

Successful merges:

#134841 (Look at proc-macro attributes when encountering unknown attribute)
#141639 (Expose discriminant values in stable_mir)
#141967 (Configure bootstrap backport nominations through triagebot)
#142042 (Make E0621 missing lifetime suggestion verbose)
#142176 (tests: Split dont-shuffle-bswaps along opt-levels and arches)
#142248 (Add supported asm types for LoongArch32)
#142272 (tests: Change ABIs in tests to more future-resilient ones)
#142282 (Only run citool tests on the auto branch)
#142297 (Implement //@ needs-target-std compiletest directive)
#142298 (Make loongarch-none target maintainers more easily pingable)
#142306 (Dont unwrap and re-wrap typing envs)
#142324 (Remove unneeded FunctionCx from some codegen methods)
#142328 (feat: Add bit_width for unsigned integer types)

r? @ghost @rustbot modify labels: rollup

matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request

Jun 11, 2025

…gjubilee

Remove unneeded FunctionCx from some codegen methods

No changes; just removing the self that wasn't needed.

r? workingjubilee cc rust-lang#138759 (comment)

This was referenced

Jun 11, 2025

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request

Jun 11, 2025

Rollup of 9 pull requests

Successful merges:

#141967 (Configure bootstrap backport nominations through triagebot)
#142042 (Make E0621 missing lifetime suggestion verbose)
#142272 (tests: Change ABIs in tests to more future-resilient ones)
#142282 (Only run citool tests on the auto branch)
#142297 (Implement //@ needs-target-std compiletest directive)
#142298 (Make loongarch-none target maintainers more easily pingable)
#142306 (Dont unwrap and re-wrap typing envs)
#142324 (Remove unneeded FunctionCx from some codegen methods)
#142328 (feat: Add bit_width for unsigned integer types)

Failed merges:

#141639 (Expose discriminant values in stable_mir)

r? @ghost @rustbot modify labels: rollup

rust-timer added a commit that referenced this pull request

Jun 11, 2025

Rollup merge of #142324 - scottmcm:less-functioncx, r=workingjubilee

Remove unneeded FunctionCx from some codegen methods

No changes; just removing the self that wasn't needed.

r? workingjubilee cc #138759 (comment)

github-actions bot pushed a commit to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide that referenced this pull request

Jun 12, 2025

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request

Jun 19, 2025

Allow enum and union literals to also create SSA values

Today, Some(x) always goes through an alloca, even in trivial cases where the niching means the constructor doesn't even change the value.

For example, <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/6KG6PqoYz>

pub fn demo(r: &i32) -> Option<&i32> {
    Some(r)
}

currently emits the IR

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  %_0 = alloca [8 x i8], align 8
  store ptr %r, ptr %_0, align 8
  %0 = load ptr, ptr %_0, align 8
  ret ptr %0
}

but with this PR it becomes just

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  ret ptr %r
}

(Of course the optimizer can clean that up, but it'd be nice if it didn't have to -- especially in debug where it doesn't run. This is like #123886, but that only handled non-simd structs -- this PR generalizes it to all non-simd ADTs.)

Doing this means handing variants other than FIRST_VARIANT, handling the active field for unions, refactoring the discriminant code so the Place and Operand parts can share the calculation, etc.

Other PRs that led up to this one:

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request

Jul 4, 2025

Allow enum and union literals to also create SSA values

Today, Some(x) always goes through an alloca, even in trivial cases where the niching means the constructor doesn't even change the value.

For example, <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/6KG6PqoYz>

pub fn demo(r: &i32) -> Option<&i32> {
    Some(r)
}

currently emits the IR

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  %_0 = alloca [8 x i8], align 8
  store ptr %r, ptr %_0, align 8
  %0 = load ptr, ptr %_0, align 8
  ret ptr %0
}

but with this PR it becomes just

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  ret ptr %r
}

Doing this means handing variants other than FIRST_VARIANT, handling the active field for unions, refactoring the discriminant code so the Place and Operand parts can share the calculation, etc.

Other PRs that led up to this one:

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request

Jul 4, 2025

Allow enum and union literals to also create SSA values

Today, Some(x) always goes through an alloca, even in trivial cases where the niching means the constructor doesn't even change the value.

For example, <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/6KG6PqoYz>

pub fn demo(r: &i32) -> Option<&i32> {
    Some(r)
}

currently emits the IR

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  %_0 = alloca [8 x i8], align 8
  store ptr %r, ptr %_0, align 8
  %0 = load ptr, ptr %_0, align 8
  ret ptr %0
}

but with this PR it becomes just

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  ret ptr %r
}

Doing this means handing variants other than FIRST_VARIANT, handling the active field for unions, refactoring the discriminant code so the Place and Operand parts can share the calculation, etc.

Other PRs that led up to this one:

try-job: aarch64-gnu

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request

Jul 4, 2025

Allow enum and union literals to also create SSA values

Today, Some(x) always goes through an alloca, even in trivial cases where the niching means the constructor doesn't even change the value.

For example, <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/6KG6PqoYz>

pub fn demo(r: &i32) -> Option<&i32> {
    Some(r)
}

currently emits the IR

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  %_0 = alloca [8 x i8], align 8
  store ptr %r, ptr %_0, align 8
  %0 = load ptr, ptr %_0, align 8
  ret ptr %0
}

but with this PR it becomes just

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  ret ptr %r
}

Doing this means handing variants other than FIRST_VARIANT, handling the active field for unions, refactoring the discriminant code so the Place and Operand parts can share the calculation, etc.

Other PRs that led up to this one:

try-job: aarch64-gnu

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request

Jul 4, 2025

Allow enum and union literals to also create SSA values

Today, Some(x) always goes through an alloca, even in trivial cases where the niching means the constructor doesn't even change the value.

For example, <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/6KG6PqoYz>

pub fn demo(r: &i32) -> Option<&i32> {
    Some(r)
}

currently emits the IR

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  %_0 = alloca [8 x i8], align 8
  store ptr %r, ptr %_0, align 8
  %0 = load ptr, ptr %_0, align 8
  ret ptr %0
}

but with this PR it becomes just

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  ret ptr %r
}

Doing this means handing variants other than FIRST_VARIANT, handling the active field for unions, refactoring the discriminant code so the Place and Operand parts can share the calculation, etc.

Other PRs that led up to this one:

try-job: aarch64-gnu

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request

Jul 4, 2025

Allow enum and union literals to also create SSA values

Today, Some(x) always goes through an alloca, even in trivial cases where the niching means the constructor doesn't even change the value.

For example, <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/6KG6PqoYz>

pub fn demo(r: &i32) -> Option<&i32> {
    Some(r)
}

currently emits the IR

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  %_0 = alloca [8 x i8], align 8
  store ptr %r, ptr %_0, align 8
  %0 = load ptr, ptr %_0, align 8
  ret ptr %0
}

but with this PR it becomes just

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  ret ptr %r
}

Doing this means handing variants other than FIRST_VARIANT, handling the active field for unions, refactoring the discriminant code so the Place and Operand parts can share the calculation, etc.

Other PRs that led up to this one:

try-job: aarch64-gnu

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request

Jul 4, 2025

Allow enum and union literals to also create SSA values

Today, Some(x) always goes through an alloca, even in trivial cases where the niching means the constructor doesn't even change the value.

For example, <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/6KG6PqoYz>

pub fn demo(r: &i32) -> Option<&i32> {
    Some(r)
}

currently emits the IR

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  %_0 = alloca [8 x i8], align 8
  store ptr %r, ptr %_0, align 8
  %0 = load ptr, ptr %_0, align 8
  ret ptr %0
}

but with this PR it becomes just

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  ret ptr %r
}

Doing this means handing variants other than FIRST_VARIANT, handling the active field for unions, refactoring the discriminant code so the Place and Operand parts can share the calculation, etc.

Other PRs that led up to this one:

try-job: aarch64-gnu

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request

Jul 4, 2025

Allow enum and union literals to also create SSA values

Today, Some(x) always goes through an alloca, even in trivial cases where the niching means the constructor doesn't even change the value.

For example, <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/6KG6PqoYz>

pub fn demo(r: &i32) -> Option<&i32> {
    Some(r)
}

currently emits the IR

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  %_0 = alloca [8 x i8], align 8
  store ptr %r, ptr %_0, align 8
  %0 = load ptr, ptr %_0, align 8
  ret ptr %0
}

but with this PR it becomes just

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  ret ptr %r
}

Doing this means handing variants other than FIRST_VARIANT, handling the active field for unions, refactoring the discriminant code so the Place and Operand parts can share the calculation, etc.

Other PRs that led up to this one:

try-job: aarch64-gnu

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request

Jul 5, 2025

Allow enum and union literals to also create SSA values

Today, Some(x) always goes through an alloca, even in trivial cases where the niching means the constructor doesn't even change the value.

For example, <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/6KG6PqoYz>

pub fn demo(r: &i32) -> Option<&i32> {
    Some(r)
}

currently emits the IR

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  %_0 = alloca [8 x i8], align 8
  store ptr %r, ptr %_0, align 8
  %0 = load ptr, ptr %_0, align 8
  ret ptr %0
}

but with this PR it becomes just

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  ret ptr %r
}

Doing this means handing variants other than FIRST_VARIANT, handling the active field for unions, refactoring the discriminant code so the Place and Operand parts can share the calculation, etc.

Other PRs that led up to this one:

try-job: aarch64-gnu

github-actions bot pushed a commit to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide that referenced this pull request

Jul 7, 2025

Allow enum and union literals to also create SSA values

Today, Some(x) always goes through an alloca, even in trivial cases where the niching means the constructor doesn't even change the value.

For example, <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/6KG6PqoYz>

pub fn demo(r: &i32) -> Option<&i32> {
    Some(r)
}

currently emits the IR

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  %_0 = alloca [8 x i8], align 8
  store ptr %r, ptr %_0, align 8
  %0 = load ptr, ptr %_0, align 8
  ret ptr %0
}

but with this PR it becomes just

define align 4 ptr `@demo(ptr` align 4 %r) unnamed_addr {
start:
  ret ptr %r
}

(Of course the optimizer can clean that up, but it'd be nice if it didn't have to -- especially in debug where it doesn't run. This is like rust-lang/rust#123886, but that only handled non-simd structs -- this PR generalizes it to all non-simd ADTs.)

Doing this means handing variants other than FIRST_VARIANT, handling the active field for unions, refactoring the discriminant code so the Place and Operand parts can share the calculation, etc.

Other PRs that led up to this one:

try-job: aarch64-gnu

Labels

S-waiting-on-bors

Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.

T-compiler

Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Remove unneeded FunctionCx from some codegen methods by scottmcm · Pull Request #142324 · rust-lang/rust (original) (raw)

Conversation

Labels

Remove unneeded `FunctionCx` from some codegen methods by scottmcm · Pull Request #142324 · rust-lang/rust (original) (raw)