Introduce debuginfo to statements in MIR #142771

dianqk · 2025-06-20T07:16:46Z

The PR introduces support for debug information within dead statements. Currently, only the reference statement is supported, which is sufficient to fix #128081.

I don't modify Stable MIR, as I don't think we need debug information when using it.

This PR represents the debug information for the dead reference statement via #dbg_value. For example, let _foo_b = &foo.b becomes #dbg_value(ptr %foo, !22, !DIExpression(DW_OP_plus_uconst, 4, DW_OP_stack_value), !26). You can see this here: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/d43js6adv.

The general principle for handling debug information is to never provide less debug information than the optimized LLVM IR.

The current rules for dropping debug information in this PR are:

If the LLVM IR cannot represent a reference address, it's replaced with poison or simply dropped. For example, see: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/shGqPec8W. I'm using poison in all such cases now.
All debuginfos is dropped when merging multiple successor BBs. An example is available here: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/TE1q3Wq6M.

I haven't drop debuginfos in MatchBranchSimplification, because LLVM also pick one branch for it.

For the perf result:

I expected this to introduce some regressions; however, the results mixed the effects of inlining. Looking at the doc profile, this is a clear optimization. One potential regression I'm investigating is serde-1.0.219-debug-full.

compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/mod.rs

dianqk · 2025-06-20T10:52:57Z

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

rust-bors · 2025-06-20T10:53:00Z

⌛ Trying commit 51576e7 with merge eb83156…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

Introduce debuginfo to statements in MIR Not ready for reviewing. Something known: - [ ] Retain debuginfo when concatenating bbs - [ ] Document about when to drop debuginfos (don't be worse than the optimized LLVM IR) - [ ] Missing tests r? ghost

rust-bors · 2025-06-20T13:23:31Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: eb83156 (eb83156169ae3bbdd1385d498455dbc44283f5ff, parent: 18491d5be00eb3ed2f1ccee2ac5b792694f2a7a0)

rust-timer · 2025-06-20T23:32:50Z

Finished benchmarking commit (eb83156): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.9%	[0.2%, 14.5%]	51
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.1%, 1.6%]	52
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-2.1%, -0.2%]	35
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.5%, -0.2%]	39
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[-2.1%, 14.5%]	86

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.3%, secondary 3.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.3%	[0.8%, 4.7%]	54
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.6%	[0.7%, 7.4%]	38
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.3%	[-3.3%, -3.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.3%	[0.8%, 4.7%]	54

Cycles

Results (primary 3.2%, secondary 2.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.9%	[1.1%, 14.4%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.5%	[2.0%, 3.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.2%	[-2.0%, 14.4%]	8

Binary size

Results (primary 0.5%, secondary 0.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.0%, 2.2%]	123
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[0.0%, 3.5%]	59
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-6.5%, -0.1%]	11
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-13.0%, -0.1%]	55
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-6.5%, 2.2%]	134

Bootstrap: 691.482s -> 692.445s (0.14%)
Artifact size: 371.94 MiB -> 372.12 MiB (0.05%)

dianqk · 2025-06-21T02:59:42Z

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

rust-bors · 2025-06-21T02:59:46Z

⌛ Trying commit e72c3ae with merge 77d5c6a…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors2 try cancel.

Introduce debuginfo to statements in MIR Not ready for reviewing. Something known: - [ ] Retain debuginfo when concatenating bbs - [ ] Document about when to drop debuginfos (don't be worse than the optimized LLVM IR) - [ ] Missing tests r? ghost

rust-bors · 2025-06-21T05:28:30Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 77d5c6a (77d5c6a20a77fabdee3790a412618b82178e9ab4, parent: 15c701fbc995eb6c5b3a86021c18185f8eee020d)

rust-timer · 2025-06-21T09:26:06Z

Finished benchmarking commit (77d5c6a): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.9%	[0.1%, 14.5%]	53
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.8%	[0.1%, 1.6%]	50
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-3.0%, -0.2%]	46
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.5%, -0.2%]	41
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[-3.0%, 14.5%]	99

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.4%, secondary 3.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.4%	[0.5%, 5.7%]	38
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.2%	[1.3%, 6.2%]	25
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-3.0%, -1.1%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.4%	[0.5%, 5.7%]	38

Cycles

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary 0.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.0%	[0.8%, 14.1%]	10
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.3%	[2.3%, 4.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.9%, -1.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.2%	[-2.6%, -1.9%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[-2.9%, 14.1%]	12

Binary size

Results (primary 0.5%, secondary 0.3%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.0%, 3.0%]	122
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[0.0%, 3.5%]	59
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-4.9%, -0.0%]	15
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-12.7%, -0.0%]	55
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-4.9%, 3.0%]	137

Bootstrap: 690.617s -> 691.47s (0.12%)
Artifact size: 371.83 MiB -> 372.01 MiB (0.05%)

bors · 2025-06-25T18:27:45Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #142870) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

dianqk · 2025-08-03T18:51:19Z

@bors2 try @rust-timer queue

Introduce debuginfo to statements in MIR

rust-bors · 2025-08-03T18:51:24Z

⌛ Trying commit 94ddfe6 with merge 61f71d4…

To cancel the try build, run the command @bors try cancel.

rust-bors · 2025-08-03T21:06:56Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 61f71d4 (61f71d48d9936122aa0ea20c45d679c962956fd3, parent: f34ba774c78ea32b7c40598b8ad23e75cdac42a6)

rust-timer · 2025-08-03T22:16:44Z

Finished benchmarking commit (61f71d4): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

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

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.5%	[0.1%, 2.7%]	27
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.0%, 0.9%]	37
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.8%, -0.1%]	62
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-1.1%, -0.0%]	74
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.8%, 2.7%]	89

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.0%, secondary 4.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.1%	[0.7%, 5.2%]	71
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.0%	[1.7%, 5.8%]	38
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-4.0%, -3.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.0%	[-4.0%, 5.2%]	73

Cycles

Results (primary -0.6%, secondary 3.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.0%	[2.3%, 7.3%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.2%	[-5.2%, -5.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-2.3%, 2.7%]	3

Binary size

Results (primary 0.5%, secondary 0.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.1%, 3.2%]	117
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[0.0%, 3.6%]	57
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-6.6%, -0.1%]	19
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-6.6%, -0.1%]	55
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-6.6%, 3.2%]	136

Bootstrap: 467.629s -> 469.243s (0.35%)
Artifact size: 376.97 MiB -> 376.97 MiB (-0.00%)

compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/mod.rs

cjgillot · 2025-08-04T23:56:45Z

compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/mod.rs

+            self.statements.retain_mut(|stmt| f(stmt));
+            return;
+        }
+        let mut debuginfos = Vec::new();


Do you mind adding a comment saying so?

compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/statement.rs

cjgillot · 2025-08-05T00:14:11Z

compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/visit.rs

+                location: Location
+            ) {
+                self.super_statement_debuginfos(stmt_debuginfo, location);
+            }


Do we really need this method?

I'm not sure but I removed.

cjgillot · 2025-08-05T00:15:47Z

compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/mod.rs

@@ -1342,6 +1342,10 @@ pub struct BasicBlockData<'tcx> {
    /// List of statements in this block.
    pub statements: Vec<Statement<'tcx>>,

+    /// All debuginfos happen before the statement.
+    /// Put debuginfos here when the last statement is eliminated.
+    pub after_last_stmt_debuginfos: Vec<StmtDebugInfo<'tcx>>,


Is it after the last statement, or before the terminator? Why isn't it inside Terminator?

We have some passes that change the terminator, which means we also must hand debuginfos. I think this will make things more complicated.
I expect these debuginfos to be handled in simplifycfg as much as possible.

cjgillot · 2025-08-05T01:37:06Z

compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa/src/mir/statement.rs

-                    LocalRef::Operand(operand_ref) => match operand_ref.val {
-                        OperandValue::Immediate(v) => {
-                            Some(PlaceRef::new_sized(v, operand_ref.layout))
+                let assign_ref = if let Some(place) = place {


Use place.and_then(|place| to keep the previous logic?

I have removed the Option.

cjgillot · 2025-08-05T01:37:59Z

compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/statement.rs

@@ -958,5 +969,5 @@ impl RawPtrKind {

 #[derive(Clone, TyEncodable, TyDecodable, HashStable, TypeFoldable, TypeVisitable)]
 pub enum StmtDebugInfo<'tcx> {
-    AssignRef(Local, Place<'tcx>),
+    AssignRef(Local, Option<Place<'tcx>>),


I'm not convinced by the benefit of allowing None here. Do you mind splitting this change from other tweaks to DSE, so we can see what it does in isolation?

Is 048f7eb what you're looking for?

cjgillot · 2025-08-05T01:43:02Z

compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/simplify.rs

+            self.always_used.contains(local)
+        );
+        // To keep things simple, we don't handle debugging information here, these are in DSE.
+        self.always_used.contains(local) || self.use_count[local] != 0


I'd rather keep handling debuginfo in this general SimplifyLocals. It runs much more often than DSE.

Perhaps, but I don't want to make this PR any more complicated, and I'm concerned about the compile time.

Perhaps I could handle this in this PR.

cjgillot · 2025-08-05T01:43:42Z

compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/lib.rs

@@ -718,6 +717,7 @@ pub(crate) fn run_optimization_passes<'tcx>(tcx: TyCtxt<'tcx>, body: &mut Body<'
            &strip_debuginfo::StripDebugInfo,
            &copy_prop::CopyProp,
            &dead_store_elimination::DeadStoreElimination::Final,
+            &match_branches::MatchBranchSimplification,


Do you mind submitting this change in a separate PR?

I will drop this at the next update.

compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/simplify.rs

dianqk · 2025-08-06T13:10:16Z

I'll squash the fixups during the next rebase. 🙏

…hain-changed, r=cjgillot simplifycfg: Mark as changed when start is modified in collapse goto chain Split from rust-lang#142771. r? cjgillot

mir: Do not modify NonUse in `super_projection_elem` Split from rust-lang#142771. r? cjgillot

Rollup merge of #144998 - dianqk:visit-no-use-proj, r=cjgillot mir: Do not modify NonUse in `super_projection_elem` Split from #142771. r? cjgillot

Rollup merge of #144996 - dianqk:simplifycfg-collapse_goto_chain-changed, r=cjgillot simplifycfg: Mark as changed when start is modified in collapse goto chain Split from #142771. r? cjgillot

cjgillot

This is looking very good thanks! I'm not certain I'm the best reviewer for the codegen part, so I just left a few questions.

cjgillot · 2025-08-10T16:28:43Z

compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/visit.rs

@@ -312,8 +321,11 @@ macro_rules! make_mir_visitor {
                    index += 1;
                }

+                let location = Location { block, statement_index: index };
+                for debuginfo in after_last_stmt_debuginfos as & $($mutability)? [_] {


in &$(mutability)? after_last_stmt_debuginfos?

cjgillot · 2025-08-10T16:50:49Z

compiler/rustc_mir_dataflow/src/impls/liveness.rs

+    ) -> Option<Place<'tcx>> {
+        // Compute the place that we are storing to, if any
+        let destination = match stmt_kind {
+            StatementKind::Assign(box (place, rvalue)) => (rvalue.is_safe_to_remove()


Nit, easier for me to understand:

StatementKind::Assign(box (_, rvalue)) if !rvalue.is_safe_to_remove() => None, StatementKind::Assign(box (place, _)) if stmt_kind.as_debuginfo().is_some() => Some(*place),

and then proceed to reasoning according to debuginfo_locals.

cjgillot · 2025-08-10T17:11:26Z

compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/debuginfo/mod.rs

@@ -160,19 +160,23 @@ impl<'ll> DebugInfoBuilderMethods for Builder<'_, 'll, '_> {
        &mut self,
        dbg_var: &'ll DIVariable,
        dbg_loc: &'ll DILocation,
-        variable_alloca: Self::Value,
+        is_declared: bool,
+        val: Self::Value,


Should we just have 2 methods? a dbg_var_addr and a dbg_var_value?

cjgillot · 2025-08-10T17:17:46Z

compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa/src/mir/statement.rs

+    pub(crate) fn codegen_stmt_debuginfo(&mut self, bx: &mut Bx, debuginfo: &StmtDebugInfo<'tcx>) {
+        match debuginfo {
+            StmtDebugInfo::AssignRef(dest, place) => {
+                let place_ref = match self.locals[place.local] {


This local is poorly named. It represents place.local, not the while place. local_ref?

cjgillot · 2025-08-10T17:19:55Z

compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa/src/mir/statement.rs

+                        (Some(place_ref), false) => {
+                            (place_ref.val, place_ref.layout, place.projection.as_slice())
+                        }
+                        (Some(place_ref), true) => {
+                            let projected_ty =
+                                place_ref.layout.ty.builtin_deref(true).unwrap_or_else(|| {
+                                    bug!("deref of non-pointer {:?}", place_ref)
+                                });
+                            let layout = bx.cx().layout_of(projected_ty);
+                            (place_ref.val, layout, &place.projection[1..])
+                        }


I don't understand the logic here. If this is an indirect place, we change the type but we don't change the val?

cjgillot · 2025-08-10T17:32:49Z

compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa/src/mir/debuginfo.rs

+        }
+    }
+
+    fn debug_new_value_to_local_as_var(


Should this be inlined? This should allow to compute offsets only once outside the loop.

cjgillot · 2025-08-10T17:36:25Z

tests/codegen-llvm/debuginfo-dse.rs

+    let ref_v1 = &ref_foo.1;
+    let ref_v2 = &ref_foo.2;
+    ref_foo.0
+}


Do you have an example where we take the address of an Index projection?

cjgillot · 2025-08-10T17:37:44Z

compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/simplify.rs

+                terminator.successors_mut(|successor| {
+                    self.collapse_goto_chain(successor, &mut changed);
+                });
+                if changed && let Some(identical_succ) = identical_succ {


Should we introduce a more localized chain_changed variable?

cjgillot · 2025-08-10T17:48:25Z

compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/simplify.rs

+                let mut succ_debuginfos =
+                    self.basic_blocks[succ].after_last_stmt_debuginfos.clone();
+                self.basic_blocks[current].after_last_stmt_debuginfos.extend(&mut succ_debuginfos);
+            }


Is there a way to look at pred_count to avoid a clone?

cjgillot · 2025-08-10T17:53:33Z

compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/dead_store_elimination.rs

 use crate::util::is_within_packed;

 /// Performs the optimization on the body
 ///
 /// The `borrowed` set must be a `DenseBitSet` of all the locals that are ever borrowed in this
 /// body. It can be generated via the [`borrowed_locals`] function.
-fn eliminate<'tcx>(tcx: TyCtxt<'tcx>, body: &mut Body<'tcx>) {
+fn eliminate<'tcx>(tcx: TyCtxt<'tcx>, body: &mut Body<'tcx>) -> bool {


Could you doc-comment what this bool is?

rustbot added A-LLVM Area: Code generation parts specific to LLVM. Both correctness bugs and optimization-related issues. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jun 20, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

dianqk force-pushed the mir-stmt-debuginfo branch from 15c968a to 6b013d4 Compare June 20, 2025 08:01

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

bjorn3 reviewed Jun 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

dianqk force-pushed the mir-stmt-debuginfo branch from 6b013d4 to 51576e7 Compare June 20, 2025 09:23

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 20, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Jun 20, 2025

dianqk force-pushed the mir-stmt-debuginfo branch from 51576e7 to e72c3ae Compare June 21, 2025 02:31

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 21, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jun 21, 2025

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Aug 3, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rust-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 3, 2025

Auto merge of #142771 - dianqk:mir-stmt-debuginfo, r=<try>

61f71d4

Introduce debuginfo to statements in MIR

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Aug 3, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Aug 3, 2025

cjgillot reviewed Aug 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

cjgillot self-assigned this Aug 5, 2025

This was referenced Aug 6, 2025

simplifycfg: Mark as changed when start is modified in collapse goto chain #144996

Merged

mir: Do not modify NonUse in super_projection_elem #144998

Merged

dianqk force-pushed the mir-stmt-debuginfo branch from 94ddfe6 to 224fbe9 Compare August 6, 2025 12:43

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

GuillaumeGomez added a commit to GuillaumeGomez/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2025

Rollup merge of rust-lang#144998 - dianqk:visit-no-use-proj, r=cjgillot

c152aa8

mir: Do not modify NonUse in `super_projection_elem` Split from rust-lang#142771. r? cjgillot

rust-timer added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 7, 2025

Unrolled build for #144998

41b645e

Rollup merge of #144998 - dianqk:visit-no-use-proj, r=cjgillot mir: Do not modify NonUse in `super_projection_elem` Split from #142771. r? cjgillot

mir-opt: Eliminate dead ref statements

06f5a9d

dianqk force-pushed the mir-stmt-debuginfo branch from 5105df9 to 7a0c75b Compare August 10, 2025 14:30

dianqk added 4 commits August 10, 2025 22:48

codegen: Generate dbg_value for the ref statement

29357bc

simplifycfg: Preserve debuginfos when merging bbs

a0b4fe1

mir-opt: Eliminate trivial unnecessary storage annotations

ec25192

mir-opt: Eliminate dead statements even if they are used by debuginfos

458ad93

dianqk force-pushed the mir-stmt-debuginfo branch from 7a0c75b to 458ad93 Compare August 10, 2025 14:48

cjgillot reviewed Aug 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

Introduce debuginfo to statements in MIR #142771

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Introduce debuginfo to statements in MIR #142771

Conversation

dianqk commented Jun 20, 2025 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

dianqk commented Jun 20, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot commented Jun 20, 2025

Uh oh!

rust-bors bot commented Jun 20, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Jun 20, 2025

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Uh oh!

dianqk commented Jun 21, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot commented Jun 21, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot commented Jun 21, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Jun 21, 2025

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Uh oh!

bors commented Jun 25, 2025

Uh oh!

dianqk commented Aug 3, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors bot commented Aug 3, 2025

Uh oh!

rust-bors bot commented Aug 3, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Aug 3, 2025

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

dianqk commented Aug 6, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

dianqk commented Jun 20, 2025 •

edited by rustbot

Loading

dianqk commented Aug 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading