finish `RegionKind` renaming
second step of https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/95
continues the work from #117876. While working on this and I encountered a bunch of further cleanup which I'll either open a tracking issue for or will do in a separate PR:
- rewrite the `RegionKind` docs, they still talk about `ReEmpty` and are generally out of date
- rename `DescriptionCtx` to `DescriptionCtxt`
- what is `CheckRegions::Bound`?
- `collect_late_bound_regions` et al
- `erase_late_bound_regions` -> `instantiate_bound_regions_with_erased`?
- `EraseEarlyRegions` visitor should be removed, feels duplicate
r? `@BoxyUwU`
Add richer structure for Stable MIR Projections
Resolves https://github.com/rust-lang/project-stable-mir/issues/49.
Projections in Stable MIR are currently just strings. This PR replaces that representation with a richer structure, namely projections become vectors of `ProjectionElem`s, just as in MIR. The `ProjectionElem` enum is heavily based off of the MIR `ProjectionElem`.
This PR is a draft since there are several outstanding issues to resolve, including:
- How should `UserTypeProjection`s be represented in Stable MIR? In MIR, the projections are just a vector of `ProjectionElem<(),()>`, meaning `ProjectionElem`s that don't have Local or Type arguments (for `Index`, `Field`, etc. objects). Should `UserTypeProjection`s be represented this way in Stable MIR as well? Or is there a more user-friendly representation that wouldn't drag along all the `ProjectionElem` variants that presumably can't appear?
- What is the expected behavior of a `Place`'s `ty` function? Should it resolve down the chain of projections so that something like `*_1.f` would return the type referenced by field `f`?
- Tests should be added for `UserTypeProjection`
Also shifts comments explaining why Stable MIR drops an optional variant
name field, for `Downcast` projection elements, to the `Place::stable`
function.
Add CoroutineWitness to covered types in smir
Previously we accepted `CouroutineWitness` as `unreachable!` but https://github.com/rust-lang/project-stable-mir/issues/50 shows it is indeed reachable, this pr fixes that and covers `CouroutineWitness`
It's not clear to me (klinvill) that UserTypeProjections are produced
anymore with the removal of type ascriptions as per
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3307. Furthermore, it's not clear
to me which variants of ProjectionElem could appear in such projections.
For these reasons, I'm reverting projections in UserTypeProjections to
simple strings until I can get more clarity on UserTypeProjections.
This commit includes richer projections for both Places and
UserTypeProjections. However, the tests only touch on Places. There are
also outstanding TODOs regarding how projections should be resolved to
produce Place types, and regarding if UserTypeProjections should just
contain ProjectionElem<(),()> objects as in MIR.
Support enum variants in offset_of!
This MR implements support for navigating through enum variants in `offset_of!`, placing the enum variant name in the second argument to `offset_of!`. The RFC placed it in the first argument, but I think it interacts better with nested field access in the second, as you can then write things like
```rust
offset_of!(Type, field.Variant.field)
```
Alternatively, a syntactic distinction could be made between variants and fields (e.g. `field::Variant.field`) but I'm not convinced this would be helpful.
[RFC 3308 # Enum Support](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3308-offset_of.html#enum-support-offset_ofsomeenumstructvariant-field_on_variant)
Tracking Issue #106655.
- Sort dependencies and features sections.
- Add `tidy` markers to the sorted sections so they stay sorted.
- Remove empty `[lib`] sections.
- Remove "See more keys..." comments.
Excluded files:
- rustc_codegen_{cranelift,gcc}, because they're external.
- rustc_lexer, because it has external use.
- stable_mir, because it has external use.
Implement `gen` blocks in the 2024 edition
Coroutines tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43122
`gen` block tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117078
This PR implements `gen` blocks that implement `Iterator`. Most of the logic with `async` blocks is shared, and thus I renamed various types that were referring to `async` specifically.
An example usage of `gen` blocks is
```rust
fn foo() -> impl Iterator<Item = i32> {
gen {
yield 42;
for i in 5..18 {
if i.is_even() { continue }
yield i * 2;
}
}
}
```
The limitations (to be resolved) of the implementation are listed in the tracking issue
Create a new ConstantKind variant (ZeroSized) for StableMIR
ZeroSized constants can be represented as `mir::Const::Val` even if their layout is not yet known. In those cases, CrateItem::body() was crashing when trying to convert a `ConstValue::ZeroSized` into its stable counterpart `ConstantKind::Allocated`.
Instead, we now map `ConstValue::ZeroSized` into a new variant: `ConstantKind::ZeroSized`.
**Note:** I didn't add any new test here since we already have covering tests in our project repository which I manually confirmed that will fix the issue.
ZeroSized constants can be represented as `mir::Const::Val` even if
their layout is not yet known. In those cases, CrateItem::body() was
crashing when trying to convert a `ConstValue::ZeroSized` into its
stable counterpart `ConstantKind::Allocated`.
Instead, we now map `ConstValue::ZeroSized` into a new variant:
`ConstantKind::ZeroSized`.
Add way to differentiate argument locals from other locals in Stable MIR
This PR resolvesrust-lang/project-stable-mir#47 which request a way to differentiate argument locals in a SMIR `Body` from other locals.
Specifically, this PR exposes the `arg_count` field from the MIR `Body`. However, I'm opening this as a draft PR because I think there are a few outstanding questions on how this information should be exposed and described. Namely:
- Is exposing `arg_count` the best way to surface this information to SMIR users? Would it be better to leave `arg_count` as a private field and add public methods (e.g. `fn arguments(&self) -> Iter<'_, LocalDecls>`) that may use the underlying `arg_count` info from the MIR body, but expose this information to users in a more convenient form? Or is it best to stick close to the current MIR convention?
- If the answer to the above point is to stick with the current MIR convention (`arg_count`), is it reasonable to also commit to sticking to the current MIR convention that the first local is always the return local, while the next `arg_count` locals are always the (in-order) argument locals?
- Should `Body` in SMIR only represent function bodies (as implied by the comment I added)? That seems to be the current case in MIR, but should this restriction always be the case for SMIR?
r? `@celinval`
r? `@oli-obk`
Rename AsyncCoroutineKind to CoroutineSource
pulled out of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116447
Also refactors the printing infra of `CoroutineSource` to be ready for easily extending it with a `Gen` variant for `gen` blocks
This commit hides the arg_count field in Body and instead exposes more
stable and user-friendly methods to get the return and argument locals.
As a result, Body instances must now be constructed using the `new`
function.
This field allows SMIR consumers to identify which locals correspond to
argument locals. It simply exposes the arg_count field from the MIR
representation.
Remove fold code and add `Const::internal()` to StableMIR
We are not planning to support user generated constant in the foreseeable future, so we are cleaning up the fold logic and user created type for now. Users should use `Instance::resolve` in order to trigger monomorphization.
The Instance::resolve was however incomplete, since we weren't handling internalizing constants yet. Thus, I added that.
I decided to keep the `Const` fields private in case we decide to translate them lazily.
Uplift `ClauseKind` and `PredicateKind` into `rustc_type_ir`
Uplift `ClauseKind` and `PredicateKind` into `rustc_type_ir`.
Blocked on #116951
r? `@ghost`
We are not planning to support user generated constant in the
foreseeable future, so we are removing the Fold logic for now in
favor of the Instance::resolve logic.
The Instance::resolve was however incomplete, since we weren't handling
internalizing constants yet. Thus, I added that.
I decided to keep the Const fields private in case we decide to
translate them lazily.
Note: We do not expect to provide internalizing methods for all
StableMIR constructs. They exist only to help migrating efforts to allow
users to mix StableMIR and internal constructs.
Add stable Instance::body() and RustcInternal trait
The `Instance::body()` returns a monomorphized body.
For that, we had to implement visitor that monomorphize types and constants. We are also introducing the RustcInternal trait that will allow us to convert back from Stable to Internal.
Note that this trait is not yet visible for our users as it depends on Tables. We should probably add a new trait that can be exposed.
The tests here are very simple, and I'm planning on creating more exhaustive tests in the project-mir repo. But I was hoping to get some feedback here first.
r? ```@oli-obk```
The `Instance::body()` returns a monomorphized body.
For that, we had to implement visitor that monomorphize types and
constants. We are also introducing the RustcInternal trait that will
allow us to convert back from Stable to Internal.
Note that this trait is not yet visible for our users as it depends on
Tables. We should probably add a new trait that can be exposed.
Also add a few methods to instantiate instances and get an instance
definition.
We're still missing support to actually monomorphize the instance body.
In smir use `FxIndexMap` to store indexed ids
Previously we used `vec` for storing indexed types, which is fine for small cases but will lead to huge performance issues when we use `smir` for real world cases.
Addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/project-stable-mir/issues/35
r? ``@oli-obk``
rename mir::Constant -> mir::ConstOperand, mir::ConstKind -> mir::Const
Also, be more consistent with the `to/eval_bits` methods... we had some that take a type and some that take a size, and then sometimes the one that takes a type is called `bits_for_ty`.
Turns out that `ty::Const`/`mir::ConstKind` carry their type with them, so we don't need to even pass the type to those `eval_bits` functions at all.
However this is not properly consistent yet: in `ty` we have most of the methods on `ty::Const`, but in `mir` we have them on `mir::ConstKind`. And indeed those two types are the ones that correspond to each other. So `mir::ConstantKind` should actually be renamed to `mir::Const`. But what to do with `mir::Constant`? It carries around a span, that's really more like a constant operand that appears as a MIR operand... it's more suited for `syntax.rs` than `consts.rs`, but the bigger question is, which name should it get if we want to align the `mir` and `ty` types? `ConstOperand`? `ConstOp`? `Literal`? It's not a literal but it has a field called `literal` so it would at least be consistently wrong-ish...
``@oli-obk`` any ideas?
