Generator optimization: Overlap locals that never have storage live at the same time
The specific goal of this optimization is to optimize async fns which use `await!`. Notably, `await!` has an enclosing scope around the futures it awaits ([definition](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/08bfe16129b0621bc90184f8704523d4929695ef/src/libstd/macros.rs#L365-L381)), which we rely on to implement the optimization.
More generally, the optimization allows overlapping the storage of some locals which are never storage-live at the same time. **We care about storage-liveness when computing the layout, because knowing a field is `StorageDead` is the only way to prove it will not be accessed, either directly or through a reference.**
To determine whether we can overlap two locals in the generator layout, we look at whether they might *both* be `StorageLive` at any point in the MIR. We use the `MaybeStorageLive` dataflow analysis for this. We iterate over every location in the MIR, and build a bitset for each local of the locals it might potentially conflict with.
Next, we assign every saved local to one or more variants. The variants correspond to suspension points, and we include the set of locals live across a given suspension point in the variant. (Note that we use liveness instead of storage-liveness here; this ensures that the local has actually been initialized in each variant it has been included in. If the local is not live across a suspension point, then it doesn't need to be included in that variant.). It's important to note that the variants are a "view" into our layout.
For the layout computation, we use a simplified approach.
1. Start with the set of locals assigned to only one variant. The rest are disqualified.
2. For each pair of locals which may conflict *and are not assigned to the same variant*, we pick one local to disqualify from overlapping.
Disqualified locals go into a non-overlapping "prefix" at the beginning of our layout. This means they always have space reserved for them. All the locals that are allowed to overlap in each variant are then laid out after this prefix, in the "overlap zone".
So, if A and B were disqualified, and X, Y, and Z were all eligible for overlap, our generator might look something like this:
You can think of a generator as an enum, where some fields are shared between variants. e.g.
```rust
enum Generator {
  Unresumed,
  Poisoned,
  Returned,
  Suspend0(A, B, X),
  Suspend1(B),
  Suspend2(A, Y, Z),
}
```
where every mention of `A` and `B` refer to the same field, which does not move when changing variants. Note that `A` and `B` would automatically be sent to the prefix in this example. Assuming that `X` is never `StorageLive` at the same time as either `Y` or `Z`, it would be allowed to overlap with them.
Note that if two locals (`Y` and `Z` in this case) are assigned to the same variant in our generator, their memory would never overlap in the layout. Thus they can both be eligible for the overlapping section, even if they are storage-live at the same time.
---
Depends on:
- [x] #59897 Multi-variant layouts for generators
- [x] #60840 Preserve local scopes in generator MIR
- [x] #61373 Emit StorageDead along unwind paths for generators
Before merging:
- [x] ~Wrap the types of all generator fields in `MaybeUninitialized` in layout::ty::field~ (opened #60889)
- [x] Make PR description more complete (e.g. explain why storage liveness is important and why we have to check every location)
- [x] Clean up TODO
- [x] Fix the layout code to enforce that the same field never moves around in the generator
- [x] Add tests for async/await
- [x] ~Reduce # bits we store by half, since the conflict relation is symmetric~ (note: decided not to do this, for simplicity)
- [x] Store liveness information for each yield point in our `GeneratorLayout`, that way we can emit more useful debuginfo AND tell miri which fields are definitely initialized for a given variant (see discussion at #59897 (comment))

…ddyb
Generator optimization: Overlap locals that never have storage live at the same time
The specific goal of this optimization is to optimize async fns which use `await!`. Notably, `await!` has an enclosing scope around the futures it awaits ([definition](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/08bfe16129b0621bc90184f8704523d4929695ef/src/libstd/macros.rs#L365-L381)), which we rely on to implement the optimization.
More generally, the optimization allows overlapping the storage of some locals which are never storage-live at the same time. **We care about storage-liveness when computing the layout, because knowing a field is `StorageDead` is the only way to prove it will not be accessed, either directly or through a reference.**
To determine whether we can overlap two locals in the generator layout, we look at whether they might *both* be `StorageLive` at any point in the MIR. We use the `MaybeStorageLive` dataflow analysis for this. We iterate over every location in the MIR, and build a bitset for each local of the locals it might potentially conflict with.
Next, we assign every saved local to one or more variants. The variants correspond to suspension points, and we include the set of locals live across a given suspension point in the variant. (Note that we use liveness instead of storage-liveness here; this ensures that the local has actually been initialized in each variant it has been included in. If the local is not live across a suspension point, then it doesn't need to be included in that variant.). It's important to note that the variants are a "view" into our layout.
For the layout computation, we use a simplified approach.
1. Start with the set of locals assigned to only one variant. The rest are disqualified.
2. For each pair of locals which may conflict *and are not assigned to the same variant*, we pick one local to disqualify from overlapping.
Disqualified locals go into a non-overlapping "prefix" at the beginning of our layout. This means they always have space reserved for them. All the locals that are allowed to overlap in each variant are then laid out after this prefix, in the "overlap zone".
So, if A and B were disqualified, and X, Y, and Z were all eligible for overlap, our generator might look something like this:
You can think of a generator as an enum, where some fields are shared between variants. e.g.
```rust
enum Generator {
  Unresumed,
  Poisoned,
  Returned,
  Suspend0(A, B, X),
  Suspend1(B),
  Suspend2(A, Y, Z),
}
```
where every mention of `A` and `B` refer to the same field, which does not move when changing variants. Note that `A` and `B` would automatically be sent to the prefix in this example. Assuming that `X` is never `StorageLive` at the same time as either `Y` or `Z`, it would be allowed to overlap with them.
Note that if two locals (`Y` and `Z` in this case) are assigned to the same variant in our generator, their memory would never overlap in the layout. Thus they can both be eligible for the overlapping section, even if they are storage-live at the same time.
---
Depends on:
- [x] rust-lang#59897 Multi-variant layouts for generators
- [x] rust-lang#60840 Preserve local scopes in generator MIR
- [x] rust-lang#61373 Emit StorageDead along unwind paths for generators
Before merging:
- [x] ~Wrap the types of all generator fields in `MaybeUninitialized` in layout::ty::field~ (opened rust-lang#60889)
- [x] Make PR description more complete (e.g. explain why storage liveness is important and why we have to check every location)
- [x] Clean up TODO
- [x] Fix the layout code to enforce that the same field never moves around in the generator
- [x] Add tests for async/await
- [x] ~Reduce # bits we store by half, since the conflict relation is symmetric~ (note: decided not to do this, for simplicity)
- [x] Store liveness information for each yield point in our `GeneratorLayout`, that way we can emit more useful debuginfo AND tell miri which fields are definitely initialized for a given variant (see discussion at rust-lang#59897 (comment))

Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
 - #60187 (Generator optimization: Overlap locals that never have storage live at the same time)
 - #61348 (Implement Clone::clone_from for Option and Result)
 - #61568 (Use Symbol, Span in libfmt_macros)
 - #61632 (ci: Collect CPU usage statistics on Azure)
 - #61654 (use pattern matching for slices destructuring)
 - #61671 (implement nth_back for Range(Inclusive))
 - #61688 (is_fp and is_floating_point do the same thing, remove the former)
 - #61705 (Pass cflags rather than cxxflags to LLVM as CMAKE_C_FLAGS)
 - #61734 (Migrate rust-by-example to MdBook2)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost

rustc: correctly transform memory_index mappings for generators.
Fixes #61793, closes #62011 (previous attempt at fixing #61793).
During #60187, I made the mistake of suggesting that the (re-)computation of `memory_index` in `ty::layout`, after generator-specific logic split/recombined fields, be done off of the `offsets` of those fields (which needed to be computed anyway), as opposed to the `memory_index`.
`memory_index` maps each field to its in-memory order index, which ranges over the same `0..n` values as the fields themselves, making it a bijective mapping, and more specifically a permutation (indeed, it's the permutation resulting from field reordering optimizations).
Each field has an unique "memory index", meaning a sort based on them, even an unstable one, will not put them in the wrong order. But offsets don't have that property, because of ZSTs (which do not increase the offset), so sorting based on the offset of fields alone can (and did) result in wrong orders.
Instead of going back to sorting based on (slices/subsets of) `memory_index`, or special-casing ZSTs to make sorting based on offsets produce the right results (presumably), as #62011 does, I opted to drop sorting altogether and focus on `O(n)` operations involving *permutations*:
* a permutation is easily inverted (see the `invert_mapping` `fn`)
  * an `inverse_memory_index` was already employed in other parts of the `ty::layout` code (that is, a mapping from memory order to field indices)
  * inverting twice produces the original permutation, so you can invert, modify, and invert again, if it's easier to modify the inverse mapping than the direct one
* you can modify/remove elements in a permutation, as long as the result remains dense (i.e. using every integer in `0..len`, without gaps)
  * for splitting a `0..n` permutation into disjoint `0..x` and `x..n` ranges, you can pick the elements based on a `i < x` / `i >= x` predicate, and for the latter, also subtract `x` to compact the range to `0..n-x`
  * in the general case, for taking an arbitrary subset of the permutation, you need a renumbering from that subset to a dense `0..subset.len()` - but notably, this is still `O(n)`!
* you can merge permutations, as long as the result remains disjoint (i.e. each element is unique)
  * for concatenating two `0..n` and `0..m` permutations, you can renumber the elements in the latter to `n..n+m`
* some of these operations can be combined, and an inverse mapping (be it a permutation or not) can still be used instead of a forward one by changing the "domain" of the loop performing the operation
I wish I had a nicer / more mathematical description of the recombinations involved, but my focus was to fix the bug (in a way which preserves information more directly than sorting would), so I may have missed potential changes in the surrounding generator layout code, that would make this all more straight-forward.
r? @tmandry

I tested the generator optimizations in rust-lang#60187 and rust-lang#61922 on the Fuchsia
build, and noticed that some small generators (about 8% of the async fns
in our build) increased in size slightly.
This is because in rust-lang#60187 we split the fields into two groups, a
"prefix" non-overlap region and an overlap region, and lay them out
separately. This can introduce unnecessary padding bytes between the two
groups.
In every single case in the Fuchsia build, it was due to there being
only a single variant being used in the overlap region. This means that
we aren't doing any overlapping, period. So it's better to combine the
two regions into one and lay out all the fields at once, which is what
this change does.

…ssions, r=cramertj
Fix generator size regressions due to optimization
I tested the generator optimizations in rust-lang#60187 and rust-lang#61922 on the Fuchsia
build, and noticed that some small generators (about 8% of the async fns
in our build) increased in size slightly.
This is because in rust-lang#60187 we split the fields into two groups, a
"prefix" non-overlap region and an overlap region, and lay them out
separately. This can introduce unnecessary padding bytes between the two
groups.
In every single case in the Fuchsia build, it was due to there being
only a single variant being used in the overlap region. This means that
we aren't doing any overlapping, period. So it's better to combine the
two regions into one and lay out all the fields at once, which is what
this change does.
r? @cramertj
cc @eddyb @Zoxc