Use `TypingMode` throughout the compiler instead of `ParamEnv`
Hopefully the biggest single PR as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/128.
## `infcx.typing_env` while defining opaque types
I don't know how'll be able to correctly handle opaque types when using something taking a `TypingEnv` while defining opaque types. To correctly handle the opaques we need to be able to pass in the current `opaque_type_storage` and return constraints, i.e. we need to use a proper canonical query. We should migrate all the queries used during HIR typeck and borrowck where this matters to proper canonical queries. This is
## `layout_of` and `Reveal::All`
We convert the `ParamEnv` to `Reveal::All` right at the start of the `layout_of` query, so I've changed callers of `layout_of` to already use a post analysis `TypingEnv` when encountering it.
ca87b535a0/compiler/rustc_ty_utils/src/layout.rs (L51)
## `Ty::is_[unpin|sized|whatever]`
I haven't migrated `fn is_item_raw` to use `TypingEnv`, will do so in a followup PR, this should significantly reduce the amount of `typing_env.param_env`. At some point there will probably be zero such uses as using the type system while ignoring the `typing_mode` is incorrect.
## `MirPhase` and phase-transitions
When inside of a MIR-body, we can mostly use its `MirPhase` to figure out the right `typing_mode`. This does not work during phase transitions, most notably when transitioning from `Analysis` to `Runtime`:
dae7ac133b/compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/lib.rs (L606-L625)
All these passes still run with `MirPhase::Analysis`, but we should only use `Reveal::All` once we're run the `RevealAll` pass. This required me to manually construct the right `TypingEnv` in all these passes. Given that it feels somewhat easy to accidentally miss this going forward, I would maybe like to change `Body::phase` to an `Option` and replace it at the start of phase transitions. This then makes it clear that the MIR is currently in a weird state.
r? `@ghost`
the behavior of the type system not only depends on the current
assumptions, but also the currentnphase of the compiler. This is
mostly necessary as we need to decide whether and how to reveal
opaque types. We track this via the `TypingMode`.
require const_impl_trait gate for all conditional and trait const calls
Alternative to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132786.
`@compiler-errors` this is basically what I meant with my proposals. I found it's easier to express this in code than English. ;)
r? `@compiler-errors`
remove const-support for align_offset and is_aligned
As part of the recent discussion to stabilize `ptr.is_null()` in const context, the general vibe was that it's okay for a const function to panic when the same operation would work at runtime (that's just a case of "dynamically detecting that something is not supported as a const operation"), but it is *not* okay for a const function to just return a different result.
Following that, `is_aligned` and `is_aligned_to` have their const status revoked in this PR, since they do return actively wrong results at const time. In the future we can consider having a new intrinsic or so that can check whether a pointer is "guaranteed to be aligned", but the current implementation based on `align_offset` does not have the behavior we want.
In fact `align_offset` itself behaves quite strangely in const, and that support needs a bunch of special hacks. That doesn't seem worth it. Instead, the users that can fall back to a different implementation should just use const_eval_select directly, and everything else should not be made const-callable. So this PR does exactly that, and entirely removes const support for align_offset.
Closes some tracking issues by removing the associated features:
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90962
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104203
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` `@rust-lang/libs-api`
compiler: Directly use rustc_abi almost everywhere
Use rustc_abi instead of rustc_target where applicable. This is mostly described by the following substitutions:
```rust
match path_substring {
rustc_target::spec::abi::Abi => rustc_abi::ExternAbi,
rustc_target::abi::call => rustc_target::callconv,
rustc_target::abi => rustc_abi,
}
```
A number of spot-fixes make that not quite the whole story.
The main exception is in 33edc68 where I get a lot more persnickety about how things are imported, especially in `rustc_middle::ty::layout`, not just from where. This includes putting an end to a reexport of `rustc_middle::ty::ReprOptions`, for the same reason that the rest of this change is happening: reexports mostly confound things.
This notably omits rustc_passes and the ast crates, as I'm still examining a question I have about how they do stability checking of `extern "Abi"` strings and if I can simplify their logic. The rustc_abi and rustc_target crates also go untouched because they will be entangled in that cleanup.
r? compiler-errors
Operations like is_aligned would return actively wrong results at compile-time,
i.e. calling it on the same pointer at compiletime and runtime could yield
different results. That's no good.
Instead of having hacks to make align_offset kind-of work in const-eval, just
use const_eval_select in the few places where it makes sense, which also ensures
those places are all aware they need to make sure the fallback behavior is
consistent.
Rename `rustc_abi::Abi` to `BackendRepr`
Remove the confabulation of `rustc_abi::Abi` with what "ABI" actually means by renaming it to `BackendRepr`, and rename `Abi::Aggregate` to `BackendRepr::Memory`. The type never actually represented how things are passed, as that has to have `PassMode` considered, at minimum, but rather it just is how we represented some things to the backend. This conflation arose because LLVM, the primary backend at the time, would lower certain IR forms using certain ABIs. Even that only somewhat was true, as it broke down when one ventured significantly afield of what is described by the System V AMD64 ABI either by using different architectures, ABI-modifying IR annotations, the same architecture **with different ISA extensions enabled**, or other... unexpected delights.
Unfortunately both names are still somewhat of a misnomer right now, as people have written code for years based on this misunderstanding. Still, their original names are even moreso, and for better or worse, this backend code hasn't received as much maintenance as the rest of the compiler, lately. Actually arriving at a correct end-state will simply require us to disentangle a lot of code in order to fix, much of it pointlessly repeated in several places. Thus this is not an "actual fix", just a way to deflect further misunderstandings.
This is a standard pattern:
```
MyAnalysis.into_engine(tcx, body).iterate_to_fixpoint()
```
`into_engine` and `iterate_to_fixpoint` are always called in pairs, but
sometimes with a builder-style `pass_name` call between them. But a
builder-style interface is overkill here. This has been bugging me a for
a while.
This commit:
- Merges `Engine::new` and `Engine::iterate_to_fixpoint`. This removes
the need for `Engine` to have fields, leaving it as a trivial type
that the next commit will remove.
- Renames `Analysis::into_engine` as `Analysis::iterate_to_fixpoint`,
gives it an extra argument for the optional pass name, and makes it
call `Engine::iterate_to_fixpoint` instead of `Engine::new`.
This turns the pattern from above into this:
```
MyAnalysis.iterate_to_fixpoint(tcx, body, None)
```
which is shorter at every call site, and there's less plumbing required
to support it.
The initial naming of "Abi" was an awful mistake, conveying wrong ideas
about how psABIs worked and even more about what the enum meant.
It was only meant to represent the way the value would be described to
a codegen backend as it was lowered to that intermediate representation.
It was never meant to mean anything about the actual psABI handling!
The conflation is because LLVM typically will associate a certain form
with a certain ABI, but even that does not hold when the special cases
that actually exist arise, plus the IR annotations that modify the ABI.
Reframe `rustc_abi::Abi` as the `BackendRepr` of the type, and rename
`BackendRepr::Aggregate` as `BackendRepr::Memory`. Unfortunately, due to
the persistent misunderstandings, this too is now incorrect:
- Scattered ABI-relevant code is entangled with BackendRepr
- We do not always pre-compute a correct BackendRepr that reflects how
we "actually" want this value to be handled, so we leave the backend
interface to also inject various special-cases here
- In some cases `BackendRepr::Memory` is a "real" aggregate, but in
others it is in fact using memory, and in some cases it is a scalar!
Our rustc-to-backend lowering code handles this sort of thing right now.
That will eventually be addressed by lifting duplicated lowering code
to either rustc_codegen_ssa or rustc_target as appropriate.
Then we can rename the _raw functions to drop their suffix, and instead
explicitly use is_stable_const_fn for the few cases where that is really what
you want.
Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
terminology: #[feature] *enables* a feature (instead of "declaring" or "activating" it)
Mostly, we currently call a feature that has a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` attribute in the current crate a "declared" feature. I think that is confusing as it does not align with what "declaring" usually means. Furthermore, we *also* refer to `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]` as *declaring* a feature (e.g. in [these diagnostics](f25e5abea2/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl (L297-L301))), which aligns better with what "declaring" usually means. To make things worse, the functions `tcx.features().active(...)` and `tcx.features().declared(...)` both exist and they are doing almost the same thing (testing whether a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` exists) except that `active` would ICE if the feature is not an unstable lang feature. On top of this, the callback when a feature is activated/declared is called `set_enabled`, and many comments also talk about "enabling" a feature.
So really, our terminology is just a mess.
I would suggest we use "declaring a feature" for saying that something is/was guarded by a feature (e.g. `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]`), and "enabling a feature" for `#[feature(name)]`. This PR implements that.
stabilize Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance APIs
Given that [RFC 3559](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3559-rust-has-provenance.html) has been accepted, t-lang has approved the concept of provenance to exist in the language. So I think it's time that we stabilize the strict provenance and exposed provenance APIs, and discuss provenance explicitly in the docs:
```rust
// core::ptr
pub const fn without_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub const fn dangling<T>() -> *const T;
pub const fn without_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
pub const fn dangling_mut<T>() -> *mut T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
impl<T: ?Sized> *const T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> *mut T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> NonNull<T> {
pub fn addr(self) -> NonZero<usize>;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(NonZero<usize>) -> NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
}
```
I also did a pass over the docs to adjust them, because this is no longer an "experiment". The `ptr` docs now discuss the concept of provenance in general, and then they go into the two families of APIs for dealing with provenance: Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance. I removed the discussion of how pointers also have an associated "address space" -- that is not actually tracked in the pointer value, it is tracked in the type, so IMO it just distracts from the core point of provenance. I also adjusted the docs for `with_exposed_provenance` to make it clear that we cannot guarantee much about this function, it's all best-effort.
There are two unstable lints associated with the strict_provenance feature gate; I moved them to a new [strict_provenance_lints](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130351) feature since I didn't want this PR to have an even bigger FCP. ;)
`@rust-lang/opsem` Would be great to get some feedback on the docs here. :)
Nominating for `@rust-lang/libs-api.`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95228.
[FCP comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130350#issuecomment-2395114536)
