Skip to content

rewrite liveness analysis to be based on MIR #51003

Closed

Description

@nikomatsakis

The current liveness code does a simple liveness computation (actually a few such things) and tells you when e.g. assignments are dead and that sort of thing. It does this on the HIR. It would be better to do this on the MIR — in fact, the NLL computation is already computing liveness across all of MIR, so we ought to be able to piggy back on those results I imagine.

It may be a good idea to wait though until the MIR borrowck stuff "settles down" a bit before attempting this.

Activity

  1. added
    C-cleanupCategory: PRs that clean code up or issues documenting cleanup.
    and removed on Jul 3, 2018
  2. nikomatsakis commented on Jul 3, 2018

    @nikomatsakis
    ContributorAuthor

    I'm removing WG-compiler-nll as this isn't really related to NLL, it's just general cleanup. Here are some tips into the code for future reference:

    The liveness code I am referring to, which ought to be ported:

    pub fn check_crate<'a, 'tcx>(tcx: TyCtxt<'a, 'tcx, 'tcx>) {

    The MIR-based liveness computation:

    pub fn liveness_of_locals<'tcx>(mir: &Mir<'tcx>, mode: LivenessMode) -> LivenessResult {

  3. cjgillot commented on Feb 13, 2020

    @cjgillot
    Contributor

    Is this issue still relevant? Can I pick it up?

  4. matthewjasper commented on Feb 13, 2020

    @matthewjasper
    Contributor

    It's still relevant. Feel free to ping me with questions.

  5. added
    A-MIRArea: Mid-level IR (MIR) - https://blog.rust-lang.org/2016/04/19/MIR.html
    on Apr 10, 2020
  6. ecstatic-morse commented on May 10, 2020

    @ecstatic-morse
    Contributor

    I looked into this this morning. A few roadblocks remain.

    For one, the MIR has no record of statements like let _ = x even before SimplifyCfg. More complex expressions seem to be lowered even when they are assigned to _, so I think the solution is to look for an assignment of an ExprKind::VarRef specifically and lower it to a FakeRead of some kind.

    There's also the issue of associating Locals with their HirIds for diagnostics. This was attempted in #51275, but it caused issues with incremental compilation. That PR worked around the issue by computing the spans needed for MIR borrowck errors ahead-of-time. I think a better solution would be to stop including VarBindingInfo in the StableHash of a MIR body. I don't fully understand the implications of ignoring VarBindingInfo for the purposes of incremental. I think it's okay as long as we don't use the HirId to determine whether to emit a lint/error, only to associate it with a Span. This suggests that we need to precompute the level for the "unused variables" lint. Alternatively, we could duplicate the approach in #51275, but that won't scale as more checking is moved to the MIR.

    Finally, I was seeing spurious warnings for variables that were bound in a match arm and only used in a guard. Presumably this will also require some changes to MIR building, but I've not investigated this one yet.

    Since I don't have a good intuition for incremental compilation or MIR building, I would appreciate any advice on solving either of these problems. @pnkfelix, this was a while ago, but did you consider ignoring VarBindingInfo during stable hashing in #51275?

  7. matthewjasper commented on May 10, 2020

    @matthewjasper
    Contributor

    The only reason Spans work while HirIds don't is because the incremental tests make stable hashing ignore spans. I think just using HirIds and clearing the VarBindingInfo after borrow checking so that it only affects unoptimized MIR would be fine.

  8. nikomatsakis commented on May 11, 2020

    @nikomatsakis
    ContributorAuthor

    I think this agrees with what @matthewjasper said, but I want to encourage us not to do anything "clever" around incremental -- that is to say, we should not try to tweak hashing schemes or something (imo), we should hash all the data. If we don't want something to be hashed, the right way is to remove it from the struct itself (which should then prove we don't have a dependency on it).

    That said, when it comes to spans, we've been talking for some time about a better scheme to handle spans and incremental compilation (see e.g. #47389), which seems related.

  9. ecstatic-morse commented on May 11, 2020

    @ecstatic-morse
    Contributor

    @nikomatsakis FWIW, my plan was to encapsulate this so that it would be clear to both contributors and reviewers when this HirId was used for something besides diagnostic spans or suggestions.

    Regardless, switching VarBindingForm to be a single HirId seems to be somewhat contentious, and doing so is not necessary to fix this issue since we can encode the spans ahead of time like #51275 did. I'll open a separate issue.

  10. camsteffen commented on Jan 24, 2022

    @camsteffen
    Contributor

    Is this something I could contribute to with some mentorship?

  11. ecstatic-morse commented on Jan 25, 2022

    @ecstatic-morse
    Contributor

    I can answer specific questions on anything MIR related, but for the incremental comp stuff we discussed above you'll need to look elsewhere. I never found a solution I was satisfied with.

    The other big stumbling block I remember was async fns, since the MIR we generate for them is more disconnected from the HIR than for ordinary fns; some things that appear as used in the HIR appear as unused in the MIR and vice versa. I don't think I tried particularly hard to solve this in #72164, so it's possible you can do better with not much effort.

    I was seeing spurious warnings for variables that were bound in a match arm and only used in a guard. Presumably this will also require some changes to MIR building, but I've not investigated this one yet.

    the MIR has no record of statements like let _ = x even before SimplifyCfg. More complex expressions seem to be lowered even when they are assigned to _,

    These two issues are solved in #72164. See this comment for a discussion of the first.

    It's also worth mentioning that with #91032, there's another big HIR dataflow analysis in addition to liveness. Going from 2 big analyses to 1 might be a less attractive proposition than going from 1 to 0.

  12. 21 remaining items

  13. added 5 commits that reference this issue on Aug 29, 2025
  14. added a commit that references this issue on Sep 17, 2025
  15. added 3 commits that reference this issue on Oct 12, 2025
  16. added a commit that references this issue on Nov 30, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

A-MIRArea: Mid-level IR (MIR) - https://blog.rust-lang.org/2016/04/19/MIR.htmlC-cleanupCategory: PRs that clean code up or issues documenting cleanup.T-compilerRelevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions