Replace visibility test with reachability test in dead code detection by krtab ·...

r? @cjgillot

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

Hm, my bad it took me some time to figure out why things were compiling on my side but not in the CI. I'll fix all the previously undetected dead code and you can review then.

@rustbot author

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc

cc @antoyo, @GuillaumeGomez

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

Commit fb75654 is kinda a 🥷 fix for Clippy and doesn't really belong in this PR. I definitely appreciate the fix, but would prefer to have it in a Clippy PR. What's the motivation in including it in this PR?

I hesitated and discussed with other contributors to Rust. My issue with having it in a clippy specific PR is that I don't have a good solution to pass the CI in this one. I can delete or mark as allow(dead_code) the unused fields here and make the more substantial fix in clippy itself, but then this requires a correct ordering between this PR merge and the update of the in-tree clippy.
Having the fix here avoids having to PR to synchronize.

Ah, was the self.allow_one_hash_in_raw_strings field unused? Well then, let's keep it in this PR. Thanks for the explanation!

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

Well it seems to finally pass the CI! Didn't expect it to end-up being a +120/-51 PR 😅
I expect that there will be breakage during bors try.

Anyway @rustbot review

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@rustbot author

I need to find a way to compile src/bootstrap locally with the stage1 compiler to get rid of all errors befors re pushing.

@rustbot review

@bors r=cjgillot,saethlin

📌 Commit 7342cc4 has been approved by cjgillot,saethlin

It is now in the queue for this repository.

higher!
@bors p=2

⌛ Testing commit 7342cc4 with merge c308726...

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot,saethlin
Pushing c308726 to master...

Finished benchmarking commit (c308726): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

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
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

Cycles

Results

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 671.121s -> 671.167s (0.01%)
Artifact size: 315.04 MiB -> 315.03 MiB (-0.00%)

Thanks everyone, especially @cjgillot and @saethlin :)

More warnings are now emitted for ripgrep (analyzed here).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged