Don't use `typeck_root_def_id` in codegen for finding closure's root
Generating debuginfo in codegen currently peels off all the closure-specific generics (which presumably is done because they're redundant). This doesn't currently work correctly for the bodies we synthesize for async closures's returned coroutines (#128506), leading to #129702.
Specifically, `typeck_root_def_id` for some `DefKind::SyntheticCoroutineBody` just returns itself (because it loops while `is_typeck_child` is `true`, and that returns `false` for this defkind), which means we don't end up peeling off the coroutine-specific generics, and we end up encountering an otherwise unreachable `CoroutineWitness` type leading to an ICE.
This PR fixes `is_typeck_child` to consider `DefKind::SyntheticCorotuineBody` to be a typeck child, fixing `typeck_root_def_id` and suppressing this debuginfo bug.
Fixes#129702
Use -0.0 in `intrinsics::simd::reduce_add_unordered`
-0.0 is the actual neutral additive float, not +0.0, and this matters to codegen.
try-job: aarch64-gnu
simplify float::classify logic
I played around with the float-classify test in the hope of triggering x87 bugs by strategically adding `black_box`, and still the exact expression `@beetrees` suggested [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129835#issuecomment-2325661597) remains the only case I found where we get the wrong result on x87. Curiously, this bug only occurs when MIR optimizations are enabled -- probably the extra inlining that does is required for LLVM to hit the right "bad" case in the backend. But even for that case, it makes no difference whether `classify` is implemented in the simple bit-pattern-based version or the more complicated version we had before.
Without even a single testcase that can distinguish our `classify` from the naive version, I suggest we switch to the naive version.
interpret, miri: fix dealing with overflow during slice indexing and allocation
This is mostly to fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130284.
I then realized we're using somewhat sketchy arguments for a similar multiplication in `copy`/`copy_nonoverlapping`/`write_bytes`, so I made them all share the same function that checks exactly the right thing. (The intrinsics would previously fail on allocations larger than `1 << 47` bytes... which are theoretically possible maybe? Anyway it seems conceptually wrong to use any other bound than `isize::MAX` here.)
Correctly account for niche-optimized tags in rustc_transmute
This is a bit hacky, but it fixes the ICE and makes it possible to run the safe transmute check on every `mem::transmute` check we instantiate. I want to write a lint that needs to do that, but this stands well on its own.
cc `@jswrenn` here's the fix I alluded to yesterday :)
Fixes#123693
Stabilize `&mut` (and `*mut`) as well as `&Cell` (and `*const Cell`) in const
This stabilizes `const_mut_refs` and `const_refs_to_cell`. That allows a bunch of new things in const contexts:
- Mentioning `&mut` types
- Creating `&mut` and `*mut` values
- Creating `&T` and `*const T` values where `T` contains interior mutability
- Dereferencing `&mut` and `*mut` values (both for reads and writes)
The same rules as at runtime apply: mutating immutable data is UB. This includes mutation through pointers derived from shared references; the following is diagnosed with a hard error:
```rust
#[allow(invalid_reference_casting)]
const _: () = {
let mut val = 15;
let ptr = &val as *const i32 as *mut i32;
unsafe { *ptr = 16; }
};
```
The main limitation that is enforced is that the final value of a const (or non-`mut` static) may not contain `&mut` values nor interior mutable `&` values. This is necessary because the memory those references point to becomes *read-only* when the constant is done computing, so (interior) mutable references to such memory would be pretty dangerous. We take a multi-layered approach here to ensuring no mutable references escape the initializer expression:
- A static analysis rejects (interior) mutable references when the referee looks like it may outlive the current MIR body.
- To be extra sure, this static check is complemented by a "safety net" of dynamic checks. ("Dynamic" in the sense of "running during/after const-evaluation, e.g. at runtime of this code" -- in contrast to "static" which works entirely by looking at the MIR without evaluating it.)
- After the final value is computed, we do a type-driven traversal of the entire value, and if we find any `&mut` or interior-mutable `&` we error out.
- However, the type-driven traversal cannot traverse `union` or raw pointers, so there is a second dynamic check where if the final value of the const contains any pointer that was not derived from a shared reference, we complain. This is currently a future-compat lint, but will become an ICE in #128543. On the off-chance that it's actually possible to trigger this lint on stable, I'd prefer if we could make it an ICE before stabilizing const_mut_refs, but it's not a hard blocker. This part of the "safety net" is only active for mutable references since with shared references, it has false positives.
Altogether this should prevent people from leaking (interior) mutable references out of the const initializer.
While updating the tests I learned that surprisingly, this code gets rejected:
```rust
const _: Vec<i32> = {
let mut x = Vec::<i32>::new(); //~ ERROR destructor of `Vec<i32>` cannot be evaluated at compile-time
let r = &mut x;
let y = x;
y
};
```
The analysis that rejects destructors in `const` is very conservative when it sees an `&mut` being created to `x`, and then considers `x` to be always live. See [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65394#issuecomment-541499219) for a longer explanation. `const_precise_live_drops` will solve this, so I consider this problem to be tracked by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73255.
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` `@rust-lang/lang`
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/57349
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80384
Add `NonNull` convenience methods to `Box` and `Vec`
Implements the ACP: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/418.
The docs for the added methods are mostly copied from the existing methods that use raw pointers instead of `NonNull`.
I'm new to this "contributing to rustc" thing, so I'm sorry if I did something wrong. In particular, I don't know what the process is for creating a new unstable feature. Please advise me if I should do something. Thank you.
stabilize `const_extern_fn`
closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64926
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64926
reference PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1596
## Stabilizaton Report
### Summary
Using `const extern "Rust"` and `const extern "C"` was already stabilized (since version 1.62.0, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95346). This PR stabilizes the other calling conventions: it is now possible to write `const unsafe extern "calling-convention" fn` and `const extern "calling-convention" fn` for any supported calling convention:
```rust
const extern "C-unwind" fn foo1(val: u8) -> u8 { val + 1}
const extern "stdcall" fn foo2(val: u8) -> u8 { val + 1}
const unsafe extern "C-unwind" fn bar1(val: bool) -> bool { !val }
const unsafe extern "stdcall" fn bar2(val: bool) -> bool { !val }
```
This can be used to const-ify an `extern fn`, or conversely, to make a `const fn` callable from external code.
r? T-lang
cc `@RalfJung`
const-eval interning: accept interior mutable pointers in final value
…but keep rejecting mutable references
This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121610 by no longer firing the lint when there is a pointer with interior mutability in the final value of the constant. On stable, such pointers can be created with code like:
```rust
pub enum JsValue {
Undefined,
Object(Cell<bool>),
}
impl Drop for JsValue {
fn drop(&mut self) {}
}
// This does *not* get promoted since `JsValue` has a destructor.
// However, the outer scope rule applies, still giving this 'static lifetime.
const UNDEFINED: &JsValue = &JsValue::Undefined;
```
It's not great to accept such values since people *might* think that it is legal to mutate them with unsafe code. (This is related to how "infectious" `UnsafeCell` is, which is a [wide open question](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/236).) However, we [explicitly document](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html) that things created by `const` are immutable. Furthermore, we also accept the following even more questionable code without any lint today:
```rust
let x: &'static Option<Cell<i32>> = &None;
```
This is even more questionable since it does *not* involve a `const`, and yet still puts the data into immutable memory. We could view this as promotion [potentially introducing UB](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/493). However, we've accepted this since ~forever and it's [too late to reject this now](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122789); the pattern is just too useful.
So basically, if you think that `UnsafeCell` should be tracked fully precisely, then you should want the lint we currently emit to be removed, which this PR does. If you think `UnsafeCell` should "infect" surrounding `enum`s, the big problem is really https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/493 which does not trigger the lint -- the cases the lint triggers on are actually the "harmless" ones as there is an explicit surrounding `const` explaining why things end up being immutable.
What all this goes to show is that the hard error added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118324 (later turned into the future-compat lint that I am now suggesting we remove) was based on some wrong assumptions, at least insofar as it concerns shared references. Furthermore, that lint does not help at all for the most problematic case here where the potential UB is completely implicit. (In fact, the lint is actively in the way of [my preferred long-term strategy](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/493#issuecomment-2028674105) for dealing with this UB.) So I think we should go back to square one and remove that error/lint for shared references. For mutable references, it does seem to work as intended, so we can keep it. Here it serves as a safety net in case the static checks that try to contain mutable references to the inside of a const initializer are not working as intended; I therefore made the check ICE to encourage users to tell us if that safety net is triggered.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122153 by removing the lint.
Cc `@rust-lang/opsem` `@rust-lang/lang`
Fix `Parser::break_up_float`'s right span
```rs
use std::mem::offset_of;
fn main() {
offset_of!((u8,), 0.0);
}
```
Before:
```
error[E0609]: no field `0` on type `u8`
--> ./main.rs:4:25
|
4 | offset_of!((u8,), 0.0);
| _____--------------------^-
| | |
| | in this macro invocation
5 | | }
... |
|
= note: this error originates in the macro `offset_of` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
error: aborting due to 1 previous error
```
After:
```
error[E0609]: no field `0` on type `u8`
--> ./main.rs:4:25
|
4 | offset_of!((u8,), 0.0);
| ^
error: aborting due to 1 previous error
```
---
`@rustbot` label +A-parser +D-imprecise-spans
simd_shuffle: require index argument to be a vector
Remove some codegen hacks by forcing the SIMD shuffle `index` argument to be a vector, which means (thanks to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128537) that it will automatically be passed as an immediate in LLVM. The only special-casing we still have is for the extra sanity-checks we add that ensure that the indices are all in-bounds. (And the GCC backend needs to do a bunch of work since the Rust intrinsic is modeled after what LLVM expects, which seems to be quite different from what GCC expects.)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128738, see that issue for more context.
coverage: Extract `executor::block_on` from several async coverage tests
By moving `block_on` to an auxiliary crate, we avoid having to keep a separate copy of it in every async test.
Simplify the canonical clone method and the copy-like forms to copy
Fixes#128081.
The optimized clone method ends up as the following MIR:
```
_2 = copy ((*_1).0: i32);
_3 = copy ((*_1).1: u64);
_4 = copy ((*_1).2: [i8; 3]);
_0 = Foo { a: move _2, b: move _3, c: move _4 };
```
We can transform this to:
```
_0 = copy (*_1);
```
r? `@cjgillot`
(fix) conflicting negative impl marker
## Context
This MR fixes the error message for conflicting negative trait impls by adding the corresponding the polarity marker to the trait name.
## Issues
- closes#70849
r? `@fmease`
small_data_threshold.rs: Adapt to LLVM head changes
When compiled against LLVM head, `small_data_threshold.rs` [fails with](https://buildkite.com/llvm-project/rust-llvm-integrate-prototype/builds/31051#0191e508-f11d-437b-a4a0-5e18247debc9):
```
/.../small_data_threshold.rs:61:12: error: RISCV: expected string not found in input
--
| //@ RISCV: .section .sdata,
| ^
| /.../small_data_threshold.s:1:1: note: scanning from here
| .text
| ^
| /.../small_data_threshold.s:6:2: note: possible intended match here
| .section .sdata.U,"aw",`@progbits`
| ^
```
I don't know how exactly the current output looks like, or if there was a specific reason for including the trailing comma on the first line.
I only saw a failure for RISCV, but it seemed sensible to adjust MIPS as well.
CI passes with this patch applied: https://buildkite.com/llvm-project/rust-llvm-integrate-prototype/builds/31053
`@rustbot` label: +llvm-main
cc `@paulmenage`
Don't call closure_by_move_body_def_id on FnOnce async closures in MIR validation
Refactors the check in #129847 to not unncessarily call the `closure_by_move_body_def_id` query for async closures that don't *need* a by-move body.
Fixes#130167
some fixes for clashing_extern_declarations lint
There were two issues with the clashing_extern_declarations lint:
- It would accept non-`repr(C)` structs as compatible with each other by comparing their fields in declaration order, but the fields could have different memory order (and with `-Zrandomize-layout`, this can really happen).
- It would accept two types as compatible if `compare_layouts` returns `true`, but that function actually just compared the *ABI*, not the fully layout -- and all sized structs with more than 2 fields have the same ABI (`Abi::Aggregate`), so this missed a *lot* of cases.
We don't currently have a clear spec for what we *want* to consider "clashing" and what is fine, so I otherwise kept the original logic. I hope to have a t-lang discussion about this at some point. But meanwhile, these changes seem like clear bugfixes.
Fix crash when labeling arguments for call_once and friends
When calling a method on Fn* traits explicitly, argument diagnostics should point at the called method (eg Fn::call_once), not the underlying callee.
This PR makes 3 main changes:
* It uses TupleArguments to detect if the user called a Fn* method directly (`my_fn.call_once(…)`) or implicitly (`my_fn(…)`). If it was explicit, argument diagnostics should point at the call_once method, not the underlying callable.
* The previous state was causing confusion between the two arguments lists (which could be different lengths), causing an out-of-bounds slice indexing in #128848. I added a length assert to capture the requirement in case this regresses or happens in another case.
* Unfortunately, this assert tripped when the required arguments information was not available (`self.get_hir_params_with_generics` was returning an empty Vec), so I've updated that to return None when that information is not available. (cc `@strottos` if you have any comments, since you added this function in #121595) Sorry this causes a bunch of indentation changes, recommend reviewing [ignoring whitespace](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129320/files?w=1).)
This is my first rustc PR, so please call out if you'd like this split into more commits (or PRs), style nits, etc. I will add a few comments/questions inline. Thank you!
Fixes#128848
Don't leave debug locations for constants sitting on the builder indefinitely
Because constants are currently emitted *before* the prologue, leaving the debug location on the IRBuilder spills onto other instructions in the prologue and messes up both line numbers as well as the point LLVM chooses to be the prologue end.
Example LLVM IR (irrelevant IR elided):
Before:
```
define internal { i64, i64 } `@_ZN3tmp3Foo18var_return_opt_try17he02116165b0fc08cE(ptr` align 8 %self) !dbg !347 { start:
%self.dbg.spill = alloca [8 x i8], align 8
%_0 = alloca [16 x i8], align 8
%residual.dbg.spill = alloca [0 x i8], align 1
#dbg_declare(ptr %residual.dbg.spill, !353, !DIExpression(), !357)
store ptr %self, ptr %self.dbg.spill, align 8, !dbg !357
#dbg_declare(ptr %self.dbg.spill, !350, !DIExpression(), !358)
```
After:
```
define internal { i64, i64 } `@_ZN3tmp3Foo18var_return_opt_try17h00b17d08874ddd90E(ptr` align 8 %self) !dbg !347 { start:
%self.dbg.spill = alloca [8 x i8], align 8
%_0 = alloca [16 x i8], align 8
%residual.dbg.spill = alloca [0 x i8], align 1
#dbg_declare(ptr %residual.dbg.spill, !353, !DIExpression(), !357)
store ptr %self, ptr %self.dbg.spill, align 8
#dbg_declare(ptr %self.dbg.spill, !350, !DIExpression(), !358)
```
Note in particular how !357 from %residual.dbg.spill's dbg_declare no longer falls through onto the store to %self.dbg.spill. This fixes argument values at entry when the constant is a ZST (e.g. `<Option as Try>::Residual`). This fixes#130003 (but note that it does *not* fix issues with argument values and non-ZST constants, which emit their own stores that have debug info on them, like #128945).
r? `@michaelwoerister`
Rescope temp lifetime in if-let into IfElse with migration lint
Tracking issue #124085
This PR shortens the temporary lifetime to cover only the pattern matching and consequent branch of a `if let`.
At the expression location, means that the lifetime is shortened from previously the deepest enclosing block or statement in Edition 2021. This warrants an Edition change.
Coming with the Edition change, this patch also implements an edition lint to warn about the change and a safe rewrite suggestion to preserve the 2021 semantics in most cases.
Related to #103108.
Related crater runs: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129466.
Fix anon const def-creation when macros are involved
Fixes#128016.
Ever since #125915, some `ast::AnonConst`s turn into `hir::ConstArgKind::Path`s,
which don't have associated `DefId`s. To deal with the fact that we don't have
resolution information in `DefCollector`, we decided to implement a process
where if the anon const *appeared* to be trivial (i.e., `N` or `{ N }`), we
would avoid creating a def for it in `DefCollector`. If later, in AST lowering,
we realized it turned out to be a unit struct literal, or we were lowering it
to something that didn't use `hir::ConstArg`, we'd create its def there.
However, let's say we have a macro `m!()` that expands to a reference to a free
constant `FOO`. If we use `m!()` in the body of an anon const (e.g., `Foo<{ m!() }>`),
then in def collection, it appears to be a nontrivial anon const and we create
a def. But the macro expands to something that looks like a trivial const arg,
but is not, so in AST lowering we "fix" the mistake we assumed def collection
made and create a def for it. This causes a duplicate definition ICE.
The long-term fix for this is to delay the creation of defs for all expression-like
nodes until AST lowering (see #128844 for an incomplete attempt at this). This
would avoid issues like this one that are caused by hacky workarounds. However,
doing this uncovers a pre-existing bug with opaque types that is quite involved
to fix (see #129023).
In the meantime, this PR fixes the bug by delaying def creation for anon consts
whose bodies are macro invocations until after we expand the macro and know
what is inside it. This is accomplished by adding information to create the
anon const's def to the data in `Resolver.invocation_parents`.
r? `@BoxyUwU`
