rustc_expand: ensure stack in InvocationCollector::visit_expr

[cuviper]

In Fedora, when we built rustc with PGO on ppc64le, we started failing
the test issue-74564-if-expr-stack-overflow.rs. This could also be
reproduced on other arches by setting a smaller RUST_MIN_STACK, so
it's probably just unlucky that ppc64le PGO created a large stack frame
somewhere in this recursion path. Adding an ensure_sufficient_stack
solves the stack overflow.

Historically, that test and its fix were added in #74708,
which was also an ensure_sufficient_stack in this area of code at the
time. However, the refactor in #92573 basically left that
to the general MutVisitor, and then #142240 removed even
that ensure call. It may be luck that our tier-1 tested targets did not
regress the original issue across those refactors.

[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

[rustbot]

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

• There are issue links (such as #123) in the commit messages of the following commits.
  Please move them to the PR description, to avoid spamming the issues with references to the commit, and so this bot can automatically canonicalize them to avoid issues with subtree.
  • f68bcb3

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 573f999 (573f9998e93ec34dfdd88bca871a1bdbab6dcd19, parent: 898aff704d6f0d00343f21d31b8b9bfac8e43007)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (573f999): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

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

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%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.8%, -0.2%]	25
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-0.9%, -0.9%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.4%, secondary -4.1%)

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

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.1%	[-4.1%, -4.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.4%	[2.4%, 2.4%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary 5.8%)

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)	5.8%	[5.8%, 5.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary -0.1%, secondary -0.1%)

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)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.2%, -0.0%]	8
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	3

Bootstrap: 470.516s -> 469.329s (-0.25%)
Artifact size: 377.36 MiB -> 377.48 MiB (0.03%)

[lqd]

r? lqd @bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit f68bcb3 has been approved by lqd

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f68bcb3 with merge d127901...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lqd
Pushing d127901 to master...

[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 8e3710e (parent) -> d127901 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard d127901d940d96209fd2ae8ff6769ad2788099fb --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. dist-x86_64-apple: 7978.0s -> 5756.4s (-27.8%)
2. aarch64-gnu-debug: 5023.3s -> 4401.2s (-12.4%)
3. aarch64-gnu: 7896.1s -> 6958.5s (-11.9%)
4. x86_64-gnu-miri: 5183.7s -> 4642.8s (-10.4%)
5. pr-check-2: 2355.5s -> 2133.1s (-9.4%)
6. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2939.1s -> 2705.6s (-7.9%)
7. i686-gnu-1: 8263.3s -> 7613.5s (-7.9%)
8. x86_64-gnu-stable: 7538.3s -> 6972.7s (-7.5%)
9. pr-check-1: 1492.0s -> 1381.6s (-7.4%)
10. aarch64-apple: 6838.1s -> 6335.8s (-7.3%)

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 (d127901): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 4.1%)

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)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results (primary -3.8%, secondary -3.1%)

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.8%	[-3.8%, -3.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.8%	[-3.8%, -3.8%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 471.382s -> 470.79s (-0.13%)
Artifact size: 378.26 MiB -> 378.31 MiB (0.01%)