Add a query for checking whether a function is an intrinsic.

[oli-obk]

work towards #93145

This will reduce churn when we add more ways to declare intrinsics

r? @scottmcm

[rust-highfive]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy.

cc @rust-lang/clippy

Some changes occured to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

could have perf effects due to the new query plus changes in how fn_sig is called

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 85132260bf971f7292d93b2ca048ff82b15eb2f5 with merge 6b213e8c965232a466dbe92b778e7c0b868ae89a...

[bjorn3]

How would this exactly help? Checking the abi works fine, right?

[oli-obk]

So the plan was to actually move away from having a separate ABI (at least for compiler intrinsics, we'll see about platform intrinsics). We'll end up with regular Rust functions that backends can opt to either replace with custom logic or just run the pure rust (but likely slower) logic

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 0a6b691 with merge 2c3dcdc0742a2a2bd9c43d4708c30d1612a9d995...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2c3dcdc0742a2a2bd9c43d4708c30d1612a9d995 (2c3dcdc0742a2a2bd9c43d4708c30d1612a9d995)

[rust-timer]

Queued 2c3dcdc0742a2a2bd9c43d4708c30d1612a9d995 with parent 56d540e, future comparison URL.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (2c3dcdc0742a2a2bd9c43d4708c30d1612a9d995): comparison url.

Summary:

• Primary benchmarks: mixed results
• Secondary benchmarks: mixed results

	Regressions 😿 (primary)	Regressions 😿 (secondary)	Improvements 🎉 (primary)	Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	All 😿 🎉 (primary)
count1	7	9	15	2	22
mean2	0.3%	0.3%	-0.3%	-0.5%	-0.1%
max	0.3%	0.4%	-0.5%	-0.5%	-0.5%

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Footnotes

1. number of relevant changes ↩

2. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩

[oli-obk]

The stm32f4 regression in cachegrind looks as follows:

12,359,260  ???:rustc_query_system::query::plumbing::try_execute_query::<rustc_query_impl::plumbing::QueryCtxt, rustc_query_system::query::caches::DefaultCache<rustc_span::def_id::DefId, bool>>
 6,552,710  ???:<rustc_query_system::dep_graph::graph::DepGraph<rustc_middle::dep_graph::dep_node::DepKind>>::try_mark_previous_green::<rustc_query_impl::plumbing::QueryCtxt>
-3,640,522  ???:rustc_hir::intravisit::walk_ty::<rustc_typeck::check::wfcheck::CheckTypeWellFormedVisitor>
 3,323,413  ???:<rustc_typeck::check::wfcheck::CheckTypeWellFormedVisitor as rustc_hir::intravisit::Visitor>::visit_ty
 2,992,392  ???:rustc_query_system::dep_graph::graph::hash_result::<bool>
 2,756,993  ???:<rustc_query_system::dep_graph::serialized::SerializedDepGraph<rustc_middle::dep_graph::dep_node::DepKind> as rustc_serialize::serialize::Decodable<rustc_serialize::opaque::Decoder>>::decode
 2,074,107  ???:<rustc_middle::hir::map::Map>::par_visit_all_item_likes::<rustc_typeck::check::wfcheck::CheckTypeWellFormedVisitor>
-2,074,106  ???:rustc_data_structures::sync::par_for_each_in::<&alloc::vec::Vec<rustc_hir::hir::MaybeOwner<&rustc_hir::hir::OwnerInfo>>, <rustc_middle::hir::map::Map>::par_visit_all_item_likes<rustc_typeck::check::wfcheck::CheckTypeWellFormedVisitor>::{closure
 1,768,396  ???:<core::iter::adapters::map::Map<core::iter::adapters::map::Map<core::iter::adapters::enumerate::Enumerate<core::slice::iter::Iter<rustc_query_system::dep_graph::dep_node::DepNode<rustc_middle::dep_graph::dep_node::DepKind>>>, <rustc_index::vec::IndexVec<rustc_query_system::dep_graph::serialized::SerializedDepNodeIndex, rustc_query_system::dep_graph::dep_node::DepNode<rustc_middle::dep_graph::dep_node::DepKind>>>::iter_enumerated::{closure
 1,496,256  ???:rustc_middle::ty::util::is_intrinsic
 1,428,531  ???:<rustc_data_structures::intern::Interned<rustc_middle::ty::adt::AdtDefData> as rustc_data_structures::stable_hasher::HashStable<rustc_query_system::ich::hcx::StableHashingContext>>::hash_stable
 1,266,012  ???:<rustc_query_impl::Queries as rustc_middle::ty::query::QueryEngine>::is_intrinsic
 1,253,030  ???:<rustc_query_system::dep_graph::dep_node::DepNode<rustc_middle::dep_graph::dep_node::DepKind> as rustc_middle::dep_graph::dep_node::DepNodeExt>::extract_def_id
-1,192,331  ???:<rustc_middle::ty::context::CtxtInterners>::intern_ty
 1,127,739  ???:<hashbrown::raw::RawTable<(rustc_span::def_id::DefId, (bool, rustc_query_system::dep_graph::graph::DepNodeIndex))>>::reserve_rehash::<hashbrown::map::make_hasher<rustc_span::def_id::DefId, rustc_span::def_id::DefId, (bool, rustc_query_system::dep_graph::graph::DepNodeIndex), core::hash::BuildHasherDefault<rustc_hash::FxHasher>>::{closure
   997,882  ???:rustc_query_system::query::plumbing::try_get_cached::<rustc_middle::ty::context::TyCtxt, rustc_query_system::query::caches::DefaultCache<rustc_span::def_id::DefId, bool>, bool, rustc_middle::ty::query::copy<bool>>
   858,762  ???:<rustc_middle::dep_graph::dep_node::DepKind as rustc_query_system::dep_graph::DepKind>::read_deps::<<rustc_query_system::dep_graph::graph::DepGraph<rustc_middle::dep_graph::dep_node::DepKind>>::read_index::{closure
   700,538  ???:<rustc_metadata::rmeta::encoder::EncodeContext as rustc_hir::intravisit::Visitor>::visit_item

[oli-obk]

The regression is pretty much expected. Some overhead will happen when query nodes get dirty and thus recomputed. Since it's overall actually a win, I'm not going to try to change anything.

[scottmcm]

Awesome to see work towards #93145!

That said, I know nothing about queries and am not a compiler contributor, so I don't think I'm the right person to review.
r? rust-lang/compiler

[davidtwco]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 0a6b691 has been approved by davidtwco

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0a6b691 with merge c90bab9f75c2ec4b9f77efe9304ae809cdbfe904...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job x86_64-gnu-tools failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

.......... (60/64)
...       (64/64)


/checkout/src/test/rustdoc-gui/escape-key.goml escape-key... FAILED
[ERROR] (line 6) TimeoutError: waiting for selector "#search h1" failed: timeout 30000ms exceeded: for command `wait-for: "#search h1" // The search element is empty before the first search `
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:00:41

[oli-obk]

@bors retry timeout

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 0a6b691 with merge 735efc0...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: davidtwco
Pushing 735efc0 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (735efc0): comparison url.

Summary:

• Primary benchmarks: mixed results
• Secondary benchmarks: mixed results

	Regressions 😿 (primary)	Regressions 😿 (secondary)	Improvements 🎉 (primary)	Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	All 😿 🎉 (primary)
count1	7	9	16	2	23
mean2	0.3%	0.3%	-0.3%	-0.5%	-0.1%
max	0.3%	0.4%	-0.5%	-0.5%	-0.5%

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression

Footnotes

1. number of relevant changes ↩

2. the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩

[oli-obk]

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

As per previous analysis #97012 (comment)