Add support for `~const` item bounds
Supports the only missing capability of `~const` associated types that I can think of now (this is obviously excluding `~const` opaques, which I see as an extension to this; I'll probably do that next).
r? ``@lcnr`` mostly b/c it changes candidate assembly, or reassign
cc ``@fee1-dead``
Stabilize shorter-tail-lifetimes
Close#131445
Tracked by #123739
We found a test case `tests/ui/drop/drop_order.rs` that had not been covered by the change. The test fixture is fixed now with the correct expectation.
Represent trait constness as a distinct predicate
cc `@rust-lang/project-const-traits`
r? `@ghost` for now
Also mirrored everything that is written below on this hackmd here: https://hackmd.io/`@compiler-errors/r12zoixg1l`
# Tl;dr:
* This PR removes the bulk of the old effect desugaring.
* This PR reimplements most of the effect desugaring as a new predicate and set of a couple queries. I believe it majorly simplifies the implementation and allows us to move forward more easily on its implementation.
I'm putting this up both as a request for comments and a vibe-check, but also as a legitimate implementation that I'd like to see land (though no rush of course on that last part).
## Background
### Early days
Once upon a time, we represented trait constness in the param-env and in `TraitPredicate`. This was very difficult to implement correctly; it had bugs and was also incomplete; I don't think this was anyone's fault though, it was just the limit of experimental knowledge we had at that point.
Dealing with `~const` within predicates themselves meant dealing with constness all throughout the trait solver. This was difficult to keep track of, and afaict was not handled well with all the corners of candidate assembly.
Specifically, we had to (in various places) remap constness according to the param-env constness:
574b64a97f/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L1498)
This was annoying and manual and also error prone.
### Beginning of the effects desugaring
Later on, #113210 reimplemented a new desugaring for const traits via a `<const HOST: bool>` predicate. This essentially "reified" the const checking and separated it from any of the remapping or separate tracking in param-envs. For example, if I was in a const-if-const environment, but I wanted to call a trait that was non-const, this reification would turn the constness mismatch into a simple *type* mismatch of the effect parameter.
While this was a monumental step towards straightening out const trait checking in the trait system, it had its own issues, since that meant that the constness of a trait (or any item within it, like an associated type) was *early-bound*. This essentially meant that `<T as Trait>::Assoc` was *distinct* from `<T as ~const Trait>::Assoc`, which was bad.
### Associated-type bound based effects desugaring
After this, #120639 implemented a new effects desugaring. This used an associated type to more clearly represent the fact that the constness is not an input parameter of a trait, but a property that could be computed of a impl. The write-up linked in that PR explains it better than I could.
However, I feel like it really reached the limits of what can comfortably be expressed in terms of associated type and trait calculus. Also, `<const HOST: bool>` remains a synthetic const parameter, which is observable in nested items like RPITs and closures, and comes with tons of its own hacks in the astconv and middle layer.
For example, there are pieces of unintuitive code that are needed to represent semantics like elaboration, and eventually will be needed to make error reporting intuitive, and hopefully in the future assist us in implementing built-in traits (eventually we'll want something like `~const Fn` trait bounds!).
elaboration hack: 8069f8d17a/compiler/rustc_type_ir/src/elaborate.rs (L133-L195)
trait bound remapping hack for diagnostics: 8069f8d17a/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/error_reporting/traits/fulfillment_errors.rs (L2370-L2413)
I want to be clear that I don't think this is a issue of implementation quality or anything like that; I think it's simply a very clear sign that we're using types and traits in a way that they're not fundamentally supposed to be used, especially given that constness deserves to be represented as a first-class concept.
### What now?
This PR implements a new desugaring for const traits. Specifically, it introduces a `HostEffect` predicate to represent the obligation an impl is const, rather than using associated type bounds and the compat trait that exists for effects today.
### `HostEffect` predicate
A `HostEffect` clause has two parts -- the `TraitRef` we're trying to prove, and a `HostPolarity::{Maybe, Const}`.
`HostPolarity::Const` corresponds to `T: const Trait` bounds, which must *always* be proven as const, and which can be written in any context. These are lowered directly into the predicates of an item, since they're not "context-specific".
On the other hand, `HostPolarity::Maybe` corresponds to `T: ~const Trait` bounds which must only exist in a conditionally-const context like a method in a `#[const_trait]`, or a `const fn` free function. We do not lower these immediately into the predicates of an item; instead, we collect them into a new query called the **`const_conditions`**. These are the set of trait refs that we need to prove have const implementations for an item to be const.
Notably, they're represented as bare (poly) trait refs because they are meant to be paired back together with a `HostPolarity` when they're being registered in typeck (see next section).
For example, given:
```rust
const fn foo<T: ~const A + const B>() {}
```
`foo`'s const conditions would contain `T: A`, but not `T: B`. On the flip side, foo's predicates (`predicates_of`) query would contain `HostEffect(T: B, HostPolarity::Const)` but not `HostEffect(T: A, HostPolarity::Maybe)` since we don't need to prove that predicate in a non-const environment (and it's not even the right predicate to prove in an unconditionally const environment).
### Type checking const bodies
When type checking bodies in HIR, when we encounter a call expression, we additionally register the callee item's const conditions with the `HostPolarity` from the body we're typechecking (`Const` for unconditionally const things like `const`/`static` items, and `Maybe` for conditionally const things like const fns; and we don't register `HostPolarity` predicates for non-const bodies).
When type-checking a conditionally const body, we augment its param-env with `HostEffect(..., Maybe)` predicates.
### Checking that const impls are WF
We extend the logic in `compare_method_predicate_entailment` to also check the const-conditions of the impl method, to make sure that we error for:
```rust
#[const_trait] Bar {}
#[const_trait] trait Foo {
fn method<T: Bar>();
}
impl Foo for () {
fn method<T: ~const Bar>() {} // stronger assumption!
}
```
We also extend the WF check for impls to register the const conditions of the trait that is being implemented. This is to make sure we error for:
```rust
#[const_trait] trait Bar {}
#[const_trait] trait Foo<T> where T: ~const Bar {}
impl<T> const Foo<T> for () {}
//~^ `T: ~const Bar` is missing!
```
### Proving a `HostEffect` predicate
We have several ways of proving a `HostEffect` predicate:
1. Matching a `HostEffect` predicate from the param-env
2. From an impl - we do impl selection very similar to confirming a trait goal, except we filter for only const impls, and we additionally register the impl's const conditions (i.e. the impl's `~const` where clauses).
Later I expect that we will add more built-in implementations for things like `Fn`.
## What next?
After this PR, I'd like to split out the work more so it can proceed in parallel and probably amongst others that are not me.
* Register `HostEffect` goal for places in HIR typeck that correspond to call terminators, like autoderef.
* Make traits in libstd const again.
* Probably need to impl host effect preds in old solver.
* Implement built-in `HostEffect` rules for traits like `Fn`.
* Rip out const checking from MIR altogether.
## So what?
This ends up being super convenient basically everywhere in the compiler. Due to the design of the new trait solver, we end up having an almost parallel structure to the existing trait and projection predicates for assembling `HostEffect` predicates; adding new candidates and especially new built-in implementations is now basically trivial, and it's quite straightforward to understand the confirmation logic for these predicates.
Same with diagnostics reporting; since we have predicates which represent the obligation to prove an impl is const, we can simplify and make these diagnostics richer without having to write a ton of logic to intercept and rewrite the existing `Compat` trait errors.
Finally, it gives us a much more straightforward path for supporting the const effect on the old trait solver. I'm personally quite passionate about getting const trait support into the hands of users without having to wait until the new solver lands[^1], so I think after this PR lands we can begin to gauge how difficult it would be to implement constness in the old trait solver too. This PR will not do this yet.
[^1]: Though this is not a prerequisite or by any means the only justification for this PR.
Consider param-env candidates even if they have errors
I added this logic in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106309, but frankly I don't know why -- the logic was a very large hammer. It seems like recent changes to error tainting has made that no longer necessary.
Ideally we'd rework the way we handle error reporting in all of candidate assembly to be a bit more responsible; we're just suppressing candidates all willy-nilly and it leads to mysterious *other* errors cropping up, like the one that #132082 originally wanted to fix.
**N.B.** This has the side-effect of turning a failed resolution like `where Missing: Sized` into a trivial where clause that matches all types, but also I don't think it really matters?
I'm putting this up as an alternative to #132082, since that PR doesn't address the case when one desugars the APIT into a regular type param.
r? lcnr vibeck
Taking a raw ref (`&raw (const|mut)`) of a deref of pointer (`*ptr`) is always safe
T-opsem decided in https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1387 that `*ptr` is only unsafe if the place is accessed. This means that taking a raw ref of a deref expr is always safe, since it doesn't constitute a read.
This also relaxes the `DEREF_NULLPTR` lint to stop warning in the case of raw ref of a deref'd nullptr, and updates its docs to reflect that change in the UB specification.
This does not change the behavior of `addr_of!((*ptr).field)`, since field projections still require the projection is in-bounds.
I'm on the fence whether this requires an FCP, since it's something that is guaranteed by the reference you could ostensibly call this a bugfix since we were counting truly safe operations as unsafe. Perhaps someone on opsem has a strong opinion? cc `@rust-lang/opsem`
Don't allow test revisions that conflict with built in cfgs
Fixes#128964
Sorry `@heysujal` I started working on this about 1 minute before your comment by complete coincidence 😅
minor `*dyn` cast cleanup
Small follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130234 to remove a redundant check and clean up comments. No functional changes.
Also, explain why casts cannot drop the principal even though coercions can, and add a test because apparently we didn't have one already.
r? `@WaffleLapkin` or `@compiler-errors`
Deeply normalize `TypeTrace` when reporting type error in new solver
Normalize the values that come from the `TypeTrace` for various type mismatches.
Side-note: We can't normalize the `TypeError` itself bc it may come from instantiated binders, so it may reference values from within the probe...
r? lcnr
Rename Receiver -> LegacyReceiver
As part of the "arbitrary self types v2" project, we are going to replace the current `Receiver` trait with a new mechanism based on a new, different `Receiver` trait.
This PR renames the old trait to get it out the way. Naming is hard. Options considered included:
* HardCodedReceiver (because it should only be used for things in the standard library, and hence is sort-of hard coded)
* LegacyReceiver
* TargetLessReceiver
* OldReceiver
These are all bad names, but fortunately this will be temporary. Assuming the new mechanism proceeds to stabilization as intended, the legacy trait will be removed altogether.
Although we expect this trait to be used only in the standard library, we suspect it may be in use elsehwere, so we're landing this change separately to identify any surprising breakages.
It's known that this trait is used within the Rust for Linux project; a patch is in progress to remove their dependency.
This is a part of the arbitrary self types v2 project,
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3519https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874
r? `@wesleywiser`
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125205 (Fixup Windows verbatim paths when used with the `include!` macro)
- #131049 (Validate args are correct for `UnevaluatedConst`, `ExistentialTraitRef`/`ExistentialProjection`)
- #131549 (Add a note for `?` on a `impl Future<Output = Result<..>>` in sync function)
- #131731 (add `TestFloatParse` to `tools.rs` for bootstrap)
- #131732 (Add doc(plugins), doc(passes), etc. to INVALID_DOC_ATTRIBUTES)
- #132006 (don't stage-off to previous compiler when CI rustc is available)
- #132022 (Move `cmp_in_dominator_order` out of graph dominator computation)
- #132033 (compiletest: Make `line_directive` return a `DirectiveLine`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add a note for `?` on a `impl Future<Output = Result<..>>` in sync function
It's confusing to `?` a future of a result in a sync function. We have a suggestion to `.await` it if we're in an async function, but not a sync function. Note that this is the case for sync functions, at least.
Let's be a bit more vague about a fix, since it's somewhat context dependent. For example, you could block on it, or you could make your function asynchronous. 🤷
As part of the "arbitrary self types v2" project, we are going to
replace the current `Receiver` trait with a new mechanism based on a
new, different `Receiver` trait.
This PR renames the old trait to get it out the way. Naming is hard.
Options considered included:
* HardCodedReceiver (because it should only be used for things in the
standard library, and hence is sort-of hard coded)
* LegacyReceiver
* TargetLessReceiver
* OldReceiver
These are all bad names, but fortunately this will be temporary.
Assuming the new mechanism proceeds to stabilization as intended, the
legacy trait will be removed altogether.
Although we expect this trait to be used only in the standard library,
we suspect it may be in use elsehwere, so we're landing this change
separately to identify any surprising breakages.
It's known that this trait is used within the Rust for Linux project; a
patch is in progress to remove their dependency.
This is a part of the arbitrary self types v2 project,
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3519https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874
r? @wesleywiser
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.
Move const trait tests from `ui/rfcs/rfc-2632-const-trait-impl` to `ui/traits/const-traits`
I found the old test directory to be somewhat long to name, and I don't think it's necessary to put an experimental implementation's tests under an rfc which is closed.
r? fee1-dead
Breaking this out of #131985 so that PR doesn't touch 300 files.
rust_for_linux: -Zregparm=<N> commandline flag for X86 (#116972)
Command line flag `-Zregparm=<N>` for X86 (32-bit) for rust-for-linux: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116972
Implemented in the similar way as fastcall/vectorcall support (args are marked InReg if fit).
make unsupported_calling_conventions a hard error
This has been a future-compat lint (not shown in dependencies) since Rust 1.55, released 3 years ago. Hopefully that was enough time so this can be made a hard error now. Given that long timeframe, I think it's justified to skip the "show in dependencies" stage. There were [not many crates hitting this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86231#issuecomment-866300943) even when the lint was originally added.
This should get cratered, and I assume then it needs a t-compiler FCP. (t-compiler because this looks entirely like an implementation oversight -- for the vast majority of ABIs, we already have a hard error, but some were initially missed, and we are finally fixing that.)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87678
Improve test coverage for `unit_bindings` lint
Follow-up to #112380, apparently at the time I didn't add much of any test coverage outside of just "generally works as intended on the test suites and in the crater run".
r? compiler
test: Add test for trait in FQS cast, issue #98565Closes#98565 by adding a test to check for diagnostics when the built-in type `str` is used in a cast where a trait is expected.
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)
Finish stabilization of `result_ffi_guarantees`
The internal linting has been changed, so all that is left is making sure we stabilize what we want to stabilize.
