Add a couple of missing ensure_sufficient_stacks

[lqd]

r? @saethlin I hope you didn't spend time on this already.

(I couldn't sleep, opened check_tail_calls, there was a single call where it could happen, might as well fix it)

This PR adds a couple of missing ensure_sufficient_stacks:

• one in check_tail_calls that prevented the Temporarily bring back Rvalue::Len #135709 backport on some targets.
• after that was fixed, the test still didn't pass starting at 4MB, so I also added one in check_unsafety and that made it pass.

I didn't add an rmake test purposefully limiting the min stack size on issue-74564-if-expr-stack-overflow.rs, but we could if we wanted to.

On apple-aarch64-darwin, this is enough to make RUST_MIN_STACK=$((1024*1024*3)) ./x test tests/ui --test-args tests/ui/issues/issue-74564-if-expr-stack-overflow.rs pass for me locally, and it does stack overflow otherwise.

[compiler-errors]

r? compiler-errors @bors r+ rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit 94562ee has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[lqd]

Let’s also cc @cuviper for awareness, and we can nominate and discuss next week.

@rustbot label +beta-nominated

[cuviper]

Thanks! I've confirmed on aarch64-linux that beta-backporting this with #135709 does pass the test was overflowing.

[jieyouxu]

@bors p=10 (rollup-scheduling, this unblocks a beta backport)

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 94562ee with merge b4b70d7...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[jieyouxu]

   % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed   Time    Time     Time  Current
                                 Dload  Upload   Total   Spent    Left  Speed

  0     0    0     0    0     0      0      0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:--     0
 96 5495k   96 5285k    0     0  35.5M      0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 36.0M
curl: (56) OpenSSL SSL_read: SSL_ERROR_SYSCALL, errno 0
Error: Process completed with exit code 56.

@bors retry (network failure?)

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[jieyouxu]

@bors retry (maybe network failure?)

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 94562ee with merge f2c4ccd...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing f2c4ccd to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f2c4ccd): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	12
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 4.3%, secondary 3.9%)

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)	4.3%	[4.3%, 4.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.9%	[3.7%, 4.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.3%	[4.3%, 4.3%]	1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 777.808s -> 777.679s (-0.02%)
Artifact size: 328.83 MiB -> 328.83 MiB (0.00%)

[lqd]

This doesn't look like noise. It is quite small however, is on secondary benchmarks only and has no cycles regressions. It's more of a bugfix than a feature, preventing a p-critical fix from being backported.

So it seems fine to me.

[rylev]

Marking as triaged for reasons specified in #136352 (comment)

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

[lqd]

Beta backport accepted 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 handled by them.

@rustbot label +beta-accepted

cc @cuviper we should be finally good to go for this and #135709 :)