interpret: support for per-byte provenance

[RalfJung]

Also factors the provenance map into its own module.

The third commit does the same for the init mask. I can move it in a separate PR if you prefer.

Fixes rust-lang/miri#2181

r? @oli-obk

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine

cc @rust-lang/miri

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift

cc @bjorn3

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc

cc @antoyo

[oli-obk]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit edbbb10 with merge 2319af46ade8e472b74eec3b691721c8b0399400...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 2319af46ade8e472b74eec3b691721c8b0399400 (2319af46ade8e472b74eec3b691721c8b0399400)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (2319af46ade8e472b74eec3b691721c8b0399400): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

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

Instruction count

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.2%	[0.4%, 2.6%]	27
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.4%	[1.0%, 3.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.4%, -0.5%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.1%	[-4.1%, -4.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.4%, -0.5%]	4

Cycles

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

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1e0755062bcb8349983f47dd02bf0e6857bcbd49): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

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.

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

Instruction count

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.4%, 0.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.0%	[1.0%, 1.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.6%	[-2.6%, -2.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.2%, 2.4%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

[RalfJung]

Ah that looks much better. :D

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

[RalfJung]

@oli-obk is there still anything blocking this?

[oli-obk]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 68af46c has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 68af46c with merge a00f8ba...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing a00f8ba to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a00f8ba): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.2%, 1.5%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	5.0%	[2.7%, 8.4%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0