Revert "Fix: On wasm targets, call panic_in_cleanup if panic occurs in cleanup #151771"

[wesleywiser]

Clean revert of #151771 as discussed in the compiler team triage meeting and #153948 (comment)

Fixes (after backport): #153948

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc

cc @antoyo, @GuillaumeGomez

[rustbot]

r? @jieyouxu

rustbot has assigned @jieyouxu.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: codegen, compiler
• codegen, compiler expanded to 69 candidates
• Random selection from 12 candidates

[jieyouxu]

Revert looks right, r=me after PR CI is green, thanks

View changes since this review

[jieyouxu]

@bors r+ rollup=never

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit c9d3a00 has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[rust-bors]

☀️ Test successful - CI
Approved by: jieyouxu
Duration: 3h 12m 30s
Pushing e6b64a2 to main...

[github-actions]

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 8931f23 (parent) -> e6b64a2 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 3 test diffs

Stage 1

• [codegen] tests/codegen-llvm/double_panic_wasm.rs: ignore (ignored on targets without unwinding support) -> [missing] (J1)
• [codegen] tests/codegen-llvm/double_panic_wasm.rs: ignore (only executed when the architecture is wasm32) -> [missing] (J2)

Stage 2

• [codegen] tests/codegen-llvm/double_panic_wasm.rs: ignore (only executed when the architecture is wasm32) -> [missing] (J0)

Job group index

• J0: aarch64-apple, aarch64-gnu, aarch64-gnu-llvm-21-1, aarch64-msvc-1, arm-android, armhf-gnu, dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl, i686-gnu-1, i686-gnu-nopt-1, i686-msvc-1, optional-x86_64-gnu-parallel-frontend, test-various, x86_64-gnu, x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-2, x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-2, x86_64-gnu-nopt, x86_64-gnu-stable, x86_64-mingw-1, x86_64-msvc-1
• J1: pr-check-2
• J2: x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-3, x86_64-gnu-llvm-22-3

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard e6b64a2f4c696b840f8a384ec28690eed6a5d267 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

1. x86_64-msvc-ext3: 1h 49m -> 1h 20m (-26.7%)
2. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 53m 2s -> 43m 16s (-18.4%)
3. x86_64-gnu-gcc: 1h 9m -> 58m 8s (-16.0%)
4. optional-x86_64-gnu-parallel-frontend: 2h 39m -> 2h 18m (-13.2%)
5. dist-apple-various: 1h 51m -> 1h 37m (-12.5%)
6. x86_64-gnu-tools: 1h 4m -> 57m 9s (-11.9%)
7. pr-check-1: 32m 13s -> 28m 36s (-11.2%)
8. x86_64-gnu: 2h 22m -> 2h 6m (-11.2%)
9. i686-gnu-1: 2h 22m -> 2h 6m (-11.1%)
10. x86_64-gnu-distcheck: 2h 19m -> 2h 4m (-11.0%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e6b64a2): comparison URL.

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

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.0%, 0.3%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.0%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 0.7%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[1.8%, 3.9%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.4%	[-4.8%, -2.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary 0.6%, 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)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.8%	[4.7%, 4.8%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-5.8%	[-7.8%, -3.7%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[-1.0%, 2.3%]	2

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 487.596s -> 487.024s (-0.12%)
Artifact size: 395.30 MiB -> 395.12 MiB (-0.05%)

[lqd]

revert, tiny changes, could be noise, the original PR didn't have these as positive results, marking as triaged as there's nothing much to do or investigate (until it relands and shows perf changes)

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

[rustbot]

beta backport approved as per compiler team on Zulip. A backport PR will be authored by the release team at the end of the current development cycle. Backport labels are handled by them.