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.