Fix stack overflow in recursive AST walk in early lint

[uweigand]

The src/test/ui/issues/issue-74564-if-expr-stack-overflow.rs test case added to verify #74564 still crashes with a stack overflow on s390x-ibm-linux.

Symptom is a very deep recursion in compiler/rustc_lint/src/early.rs:
fn visit_expr(&mut self, e: &'a ast::Expr) {
self.with_lint_attrs(e.id, &e.attrs, |cx| {
lint_callback!(cx, check_expr, e);
ast_visit::walk_expr(cx, e);
})
}
(where walk_expr recursively calls back into visit_expr). The crash happens at a nesting depth of over 17000 stack frames when using the default 8 MB stack size on s390x.

This patch fixes the problem by adding a ensure_sufficient_stack call to the with_lint_attrs routine (which also should take care of all the other mutually recursive visitors here).

Fixes part of #105383.

[rustbot]

r? @TaKO8Ki

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

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 6bb2bda with merge a08ba4117383950d7eaa1512ecfc3401d69038d3...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a08ba4117383950d7eaa1512ecfc3401d69038d3 (a08ba4117383950d7eaa1512ecfc3401d69038d3)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a08ba4117383950d7eaa1512ecfc3401d69038d3): 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-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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
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)	4.6%	[4.6%, 4.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

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

[Noratrieb]

r? Nilstrieb
@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 6bb2bda has been approved by Nilstrieb

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 50. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 6bb2bda with merge 8ecaad8...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Nilstrieb
Pushing 8ecaad8 to master...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Nilstrieb
Pushing 8ecaad8 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (8ecaad8): 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)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1

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)	2.7%	[2.3%, 3.0%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[-3.1%, 3.0%]	3

Cycles

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