Perform instsimplify before inline to eliminate some trivial calls
I am currently working on #128081. In the current pipeline, we can get the following clone statements ([godbolt](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/931316fhP)):
```
bb0: {
StorageLive(_2);
_2 = ((*_1).0: i32);
StorageLive(_3);
_3 = ((*_1).1: u64);
_0 = Foo { a: move _2, b: move _3 };
StorageDead(_3);
StorageDead(_2);
return;
}
```
Analyzing such statements will be simple and fast. We don't need to consider branches or some interfering statements. However, this requires us to run `InstSimplify`, `ReferencePropagation`, and `SimplifyCFG` at least once. I can introduce a new pass, but I think the best place for it would be within `InstSimplify`.
I put `InstSimplify` before `Inline`, which takes some of the burden away from `Inline`.
r? `@saethlin`
Isolate the diagnostic code that expects `thir::Pat` to be printable
Currently, `thir::Pat` implements `fmt::Display` (and `IntoDiagArg`) directly, for use by a few diagnostics.
That makes it tricky to experiment with alternate representations for THIR patterns, because the patterns currently need to be printable on their own. That immediately rules out possibilities like storing subpatterns as a `PatId` index into a central list (instead of the current directly-owned `Box<Pat>`).
This PR therefore takes an incremental step away from that obstacle, by removing `thir::Pat` from diagnostic structs in `rustc_pattern_analysis`, and hiding the pattern-printing process behind a single public `Pat::to_string` method. Doing so makes it easier to identify and update the code that wants to print patterns, and gives a place to pass in additional context in the future if necessary.
---
I'm currently not sure whether switching over to `PatId` is actually desirable or not, but I think this change makes sense on its own merits, by reducing the coupling between `thir::Pat` and the pattern-analysis error types.
miri: fix offset_from behavior on wildcard pointers
offset_from wouldn't behave correctly when the "end" pointer was a wildcard pointer (result of an int2ptr cast) just at the end of the allocation. Fix that by expressing the "same allocation" check in terms of two `check_ptr_access_signed` instead of something specific to offset_from, which is both more canonical and works better with wildcard pointers.
The second commit just improves diagnostics: I wanted the "pointer is dangling (has no provenance)" message to say how many bytes of memory it expected to see (since if it were 0 bytes, this would actually be legal, so it's good to tell the user that it's not 0 bytes). And then I was annoying that the error looks so different for when you deref a dangling pointer vs an out-of-bounds pointer so I made them more similar.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/3767
Update compiler_builtins to 0.1.114
The `weak-intrinsics` feature was removed from compiler_builtins in https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/pull/598, so dropped the `compiler-builtins-weak-intrinsics` feature from alloc/std/sysroot.
In https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/pull/593, some builtins for f16/f128 were added. These don't work for all compiler backends, so add a `compiler-builtins-no-f16-f128` feature and disable it for cranelift and gcc.
This gives a clearer view of the (diagnostic) code that expects to be able to
print THIR patterns, and makes it possible to experiment with requiring some
kind of context (for ID lookup) when printing patterns.
The `weak-intrinsics` feature was removed from compiler_builtins in
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/pull/598, so dropped the
`compiler-builtins-weak-intrinsics` feature from alloc/std/sysroot.
In https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/pull/593, some
builtins for f16/f128 were added. These don't work for all compiler
backends, so add a `compiler-builtins-no-f16-f128` feature and disable
it for cranelift and gcc. Also disable it for LLVM targets that don't
support it.
As decided in rust-lang/compiler-team#750.
Use declarations are currently wildly inconsistent because rustfmt is
quite unopinionated about how they should be formatted. The
`rustfmt.toml` additions makes rustfmt more opinionated, which avoids
the need for any decision when adding new use declarations to a file.
This commit only updates `rustfmt.toml` and
`compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift/rustfmt.toml`. The next commit will do
the reformatting.
deps: dedup object, wasmparser, wasm-encoder
* dedups one `object`, additional dupe will be removed, with next `thorin-dwp` update
* `wasmparser` pinned to minor versions, so full merge isn't possible
* same with `wasm-encoder`
Turned off some features for `wasmparser` (see features https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-tools/blob/v1.208.1/crates/wasmparser/Cargo.toml) in `run-make-support`, looks working?
Don't manually implement `PartialEq` for some types in `rustc_type_ir`
> > As a follow-up, we should look at not manually implementing PartialEq for these types but instead going thru a derive
>
> I will try to tackle this later in a separate PR
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127042#issuecomment-2218838446
Add migration lint for 2024 prelude additions
This adds the migration lint for the newly ambiguous methods `poll` and `into_future`. When these methods are used on types implementing the respective traits, it will be ambiguous in the future, which can lead to hard errors or behavior changes depending on the exact circumstances.
tracked by #121042
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
r? compiler-errors as the method prober
This adds the migration lint for the newly ambiguous methods `poll` and
`into_future`. When these methods are used on types implementing the
respective traits, it will be ambiguous in the future, which can lead to
hard errors or behavior changes depending on the exact circumstances.
`#[naked]`: report incompatible attributes
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
this is a re-implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93809 by ``@bstrie`` which was closed 2 years ago due to inactivity.
This PR takes some of the final comments into account, specifically providing a little more context in error messages, and using an allow list to determine which attributes are compatible with `#[naked]`.
Notable attributes that are incompatible with `#[naked]` are:
* `#[inline]`
* `#[track_caller]`
* ~~`#[target_feature]`~~ (this is now allowed, see PR discussion)
* `#[test]`, `#[ignore]`, `#[should_panic]`
These attributes just directly conflict with what `#[naked]` should do.
Naked functions are still important for systems programming, embedded, and operating systems, so I'd like to move them forward.
Disable jump threading of float equality
Jump threading stores values as `u128` (`ScalarInt`) and does its comparisons for equality as integer comparisons.
This works great for integers. Sadly, not everything is an integer.
Floats famously have wonky equality semantcs, with `NaN!=NaN` and `0.0 == -0.0`. This does not match our beautiful integer bitpattern equality and therefore causes things to go horribly wrong.
While jump threading could be extended to support floats by remembering that they're floats in the value state and handling them properly, it's signficantly easier to just disable it for now.
fixes#128243
Remove logic to suggest clone of function output
I can't exactly tell, but I believe that this suggestion is operating off of a heuristic that the lifetime of a function's input is correlated with the lifetime of a function's output in such a way that cloning would fix an error. I don't think that actually manages to hit the bar of "actually provides useful suggestions" most of the time.
Specifically, I've hit false-positives due to this suggestion *twice* when fixing ICEs in the compiler, so I don't think it's worthwhile having this logic around. Neither of the two affected UI tests are actually fixed by the suggestion.
improve error message when `global_asm!` uses `asm!` options
specifically, what was
error: expected one of `)`, `att_syntax`, or `raw`, found `preserves_flags`
--> $DIR/bad-options.rs:45:25
|
LL | global_asm!("", options(preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected one of `)`, `att_syntax`, or `raw`
is now
error: the `preserves_flags` option cannot be used with `global_asm!`
--> $DIR/bad-options.rs:45:25
|
LL | global_asm!("", options(preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the `preserves_flags` option is not meaningful for global-scoped inline assembly
mirroring the phrasing of the [reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/inline-assembly.html#options).
This is also a bit of a refactor for a future `naked_asm!` macro (for use in `#[naked]` functions). Currently this sort of error can come up when switching from inline to global asm, or when a user just isn't that experienced with assembly. With `naked_asm!` added to the mix hitting this error is more likely.
Jump threading stores values as `u128` (`ScalarInt`) and does its
comparisons for equality as integer comparisons.
This works great for integers. Sadly, not everything is an integer.
Floats famously have wonky equality semantcs, with `NaN!=NaN` and
`0.0 == -0.0`. This does not match our beautiful integer bitpattern
equality and therefore causes things to go horribly wrong.
While jump threading could be extended to support floats by remembering
that they're floats in the value state and handling them properly,
it's signficantly easier to just disable it for now.
Make `missing_fragment_specifier` an error in edition 2024
`missing_fragment_specifier` has been a future compatibility warning since 2017. Uplifting it to an unconditional hard error was attempted in 2020, but eventually reverted due to fallout.
Make it an error only in edition >= 2024, leaving the lint for older editions. This change will make it easier to support more macro syntax that relies on usage of `$`.
Fixes <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40107>
---
It is rather late for the edition but since this change is relatively small, it seems worth at least bringing up. This follows a brief [Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/268952-edition/topic/.60.20DBD.20-.3E.20hard.20error) (cc `@tmandry).`
Making this an edition-dependent lint has come up before but there was not a strong motivation. I am proposing it at this time because this would simplify the [named macro capture groups](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3649) RFC, which has had mildly positive response, and makes use of new `$` syntax in the matcher. The proposed syntax currently parses as metavariables without a fragment specifier; this warning is raised, but there are no errors.
It is obviously not known that this specific RFC will eventually be accepted, but forbidding `missing_fragment_specifier` should make it easier to support any new syntax in the future that makes use of `$` in different ways. The syntax conflict is also not impossible to overcome, but making it clear that unnamed metavariables are rejected makes things more straightforward and should allow for better diagnostics.
`@Mark-Simulacrum` suggested making this forbid-by-default instead of an error at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40107#issuecomment-761727885, but I don't think this would allow the same level of syntax flexibility.
It is also possible to reconsider making this an unconditional error since four years have elapsed since the previous attempt, but this seems likely to hit the same pitfalls. (Possibly worth a crater run?)
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128143
- merge error codes
- use attribute name that is incompatible in error message
- add test for conditional incompatible attribute
- add `linkage` to the allowlist
`missing_fragment_specifier` has been a future compatibility warning
since 2017. Uplifting it to an unconditional hard error was attempted in
2020, but eventually reverted due to fallout.
Make it an error only in edition >= 2024, leaving the lint for older
editions. This change will make it easier to support more macro syntax
that relies on usage of `$`.
Fixes <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40107>
Improve `extern "<abi>" unsafe fn()` error message
These errors were already reported in #87217, and fixed by #87235 but missed the case of an explicit ABI.
This PR does not cover multiple keywords like `extern "C" pub const unsafe fn()`, but I don't know what a good way to cover this would be. It also seems rarer than `extern "C" unsafe` which I saw happen a few times in workshops.
Remove unnecessary range replacements
This PR removes an unnecessary range replacement in `collect_tokens_trailing_token`, and does a couple of other small cleanups.
r? ````@petrochenkov````
Implement `Copy`/`Clone` for async closures
We can do so in the same cases that regular closures do.
For the purposes of cloning, coroutine-closures are actually precisely the same as regular closures, specifically in the aspect that `Clone` impls care about which is the upvars. The only difference b/w coroutine-closures and regular closures is the type that they *return*, but this type has not been *created* yet, so we don't really have a problem.
IDK why I didn't add this impl initially -- I went back and forth a bit on the internal representation for coroutine-closures before settling on a design which largely models regular closures. Previous (not published) iterations of coroutine-closures used to be represented as a special (read: cursed) kind of coroutine, which would probably suffer from the pitfalls that coroutines have that oli mentioned below in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128201#issuecomment-2251230274.
r? oli-obk
Support ?Trait bounds in supertraits and dyn Trait under a feature gate
This patch allows `maybe` polarity bounds under a feature gate. The only language change here is that corresponding hard errors are replaced by feature gates. Example:
```rust
#![feature(allow_maybe_polarity)]
...
trait Trait1 : ?Trait { ... } // ok
fn foo(_: Box<(dyn Trait2 + ?Trait)>) {} // ok
fn bar<T: ?Sized + ?Trait>(_: &T) {} // ok
```
Maybe bounds still don't do anything (except for `Sized` trait), however this patch will allow us to [experiment with default auto traits](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120706#issuecomment-1934006762).
This is a part of the [MCP: Low level components for async drop](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/727)
Let InstCombine remove Clone shims inside Clone shims
The Clone shims that we generate tend to recurse into other Clone shims, which gets very silly very quickly. Here's our current state: https://godbolt.org/z/E69YeY8eq
So I've added InstSimplify to the shims optimization passes, and improved `is_trivially_pure_clone_copy` so that it can delete those calls inside the shim. This makes the shim way smaller because most of its size is the required ceremony for unwinding.
This change also completely breaks the UI test added for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104870. With this PR, that program ICEs in MIR type checking because `is_trivially_pure_clone_copy` and the trait solver disagree on whether `*mut u8` is `Copy`. And adding the requisite `Copy` impl to make them agree makes the test not generate any diagnostics. Considering that I spent most of my time on this PR fixing `#![no_core]` tests, I would prefer to just delete this one. The maintenance burden of `#![no_core]` is uniquely high because when they break they tend to break in very confusing ways.
try-job: x86_64-mingw
exhaustiveness: Explain why a given pattern is considered unreachable
This PR tells the user why a given pattern is considered unreachable. I reused the intersection information we were already computing; even though it's incomplete I convinced myself that it is sufficient to always get a set of patterns that cover the unreachable one.
I'm not a fan of the diagnostic messages I came up with, I'm open to suggestions.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127870. This is also the other one of the two diagnostic improvements I wanted to do before https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122792.
Note: the first commit is an unrelated drive-by tweak.
r? `@compiler-errors`
