The previous approach of checking for the reserve-r9 target feature
didn't actually work because LLVM only sets this feature very late when
initializing the per-function subtarget.
safely `transmute<&List<Ty<'tcx>>, &List<GenericArg<'tcx>>>`
This PR has 3 relevant steps which are is split in distinct commits.
The first commit now interns `List<Ty<'tcx>>` and `List<GenericArg<'tcx>>` together, potentially reusing memory while allowing free conversions between these two using `List<Ty<'tcx>>::as_substs()` and `SubstsRef<'tcx>::try_as_type_list()`.
Using this, we then use `&'tcx List<Ty<'tcx>>` instead of a `SubstsRef<'tcx>` for tuple fields, simplifying a bunch of code.
Finally, as tuple fields and other generic arguments now use a different `TypeFoldable<'tcx>` impl, we optimize the impl for `List<Ty<'tcx>>` improving perf by slightly less than 1% in tuple heavy benchmarks.
Revert #93800, fixing CI time regression
This reverts commit a240ccd81c (merge commit of #93800), reversing
changes made to 393fdc1048.
This PR was likely responsible for a relatively large regression in
dist-x86_64-msvc-alt builder times, from approximately 1.7 to 2.8 hours,
bringing that builder into the pool of the slowest builders we currently have.
This seems to be limited to the alt builder due to needing parallel-compiler
enabled, likely leading to slow LLVM compilation for some reason. See some
investigation in [this Zulip stream](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/242791-t-infra/topic/msvc.28.3F.29.20builders.20running.20much.20slower).
cc `@lcnr` `@oli-obk` `@b-naber` (per original PRs review/author)
We can re-apply this PR once the regression is fixed, but it is sufficiently large that I don't think keeping this on master is viable in the meantime unless there's a very strong case to be made for it. Alternatively, we can disable that builder (it's not critical since it's an alt build), but that obviously carries its own costs.
Normalize obligation and expected trait_refs in confirm_poly_trait_refs
Consolidate normalization the obligation and expected trait refs in `confirm_poly_trait_refs`. Also, _always_ normalize these trait refs -- we were already normalizing the obligation trait ref when confirming closure and generator candidates, but this does it for fn pointer confirmation as well.
This presumably does more work in the case that the obligation's trait ref is already normalized, but we can see from the perf runs in #94070, it actually (paradoxically, perhaps) improves performance when paired with logic that normalizes projections in fulfillment loop.
The #[allow(...)] directive was tested for the body and the pattern,
but non-presence of it wasn't tested. Furthermore, it wasn't tested
for the expression. We add expression tests as well as ones checking
the non-presence of the directive.
This reverts commit a240ccd81c, reversing
changes made to 393fdc1048.
This PR was likely responsible for a relatively large regression in
dist-x86_64-msvc-alt builder times, from approximately 1.7 to 2.8 hours,
bringing that builder into the pool of the slowest builders we currently have.
This seems to be limited to the alt builder due to needing parallel-compiler
enabled, likely leading to slow LLVM compilation for some reason.
This is no longer used by the compiler itself, and removing this support opens
the door to massively simplifying the Decodable/Decoder API by dropping the
self-describing deserialization support (necessary for JSON).
Improve `unused_unsafe` lint
I’m going to add some motivation and explanation below, particularly pointing the changes in behavior from this PR.
_Edit:_ Looking for existing issues, looks like this PR fixes#88260.
_Edit2:_ Now also contains code that closes#90776.
Main motivation: Fixes some issues with the current behavior. This PR is
more-or-less completely re-implementing the unused_unsafe lint; it’s also only
done in the MIR-version of the lint, the set of tests for the `-Zthir-unsafeck`
version no longer succeeds (and is thus disabled, see `lint-unused-unsafe.rs`).
On current nightly,
```rs
unsafe fn unsf() {}
fn inner_ignored() {
unsafe {
#[allow(unused_unsafe)]
unsafe {
unsf()
}
}
}
```
doesn’t create any warnings. This situation is not unrealistic to come by, the
inner `unsafe` block could e.g. come from a macro. Actually, this PR even
includes removal of one unused `unsafe` in the standard library that was missed
in a similar situation. (The inner `unsafe` coming from an external macro hides
the warning, too.)
The reason behind this problem is how the check currently works:
* While generating MIR, it already skips nested unsafe blocks (i.e. unsafe
nested in other unsafe) so that the inner one is always the one considered
unused
* To differentiate the cases of no unsafe operations inside the `unsafe` vs.
a surrounding `unsafe` block, there’s some ad-hoc magic walking up the HIR to
look for surrounding used `unsafe` blocks.
There’s a lot of problems with this approach besides the one presented above.
E.g. the MIR-building uses checks for `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint to decide
early whether or not `unsafe` blocks in an `unsafe fn` are redundant and ought
to be removed.
```rs
unsafe fn granular_disallow_op_in_unsafe_fn() {
unsafe {
#[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
{
unsf();
}
}
}
```
```
error: call to unsafe function is unsafe and requires unsafe block (error E0133)
--> src/main.rs:13:13
|
13 | unsf();
| ^^^^^^ call to unsafe function
|
note: the lint level is defined here
--> src/main.rs:11:16
|
11 | #[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: consult the function's documentation for information on how to avoid undefined behavior
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:5
|
9 | unsafe fn granular_disallow_op_in_unsafe_fn() {
| --------------------------------------------- because it's nested under this `unsafe` fn
10 | unsafe {
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
```
Here, the intermediate `unsafe` was ignored, even though it contains a unsafe
operation that is not allowed to happen in an `unsafe fn` without an additional `unsafe` block.
Also closures were problematic and the workaround/algorithms used on current
nightly didn’t work properly. (I skipped trying to fully understand what it was
supposed to do, because this PR uses a completely different approach.)
```rs
fn nested() {
unsafe {
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
```
vs
```rs
fn nested() {
let _ = || unsafe {
let _ = || unsafe { unsf() };
};
}
```
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:9:16
|
9 | let _ = || unsafe {
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:20
|
10 | let _ = || unsafe { unsf() };
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
*note that this warning kind-of suggests that **both** unsafe blocks are redundant*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also dislike the fact that it always suggests keeping the outermost `unsafe`.
E.g. for
```rs
fn granularity() {
unsafe {
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
I prefer if `rustc` suggests removing the more-course outer-level `unsafe`
instead of the fine-grained inner `unsafe` blocks, which it currently does on nightly:
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:11:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
11 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:12:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
12 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Needless to say, this PR addresses all these points. For context, as far as my
understanding goes, the main advantage of skipping inner unsafe blocks was that
a test case like
```rs
fn top_level_used() {
unsafe {
unsf();
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
should generate some warning because there’s redundant nested `unsafe`, however
every single `unsafe` block _does_ contain some statement that uses it. Of course
this PR doesn’t aim change the warnings on this kind of code example, because
the current behavior, warning on all the inner `unsafe` blocks, makes sense in this case.
As mentioned, during MIR building all the unsafe blocks *are* kept now, and usage
is attributed to them. The way to still generate a warning like
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:11:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsf();
11 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:12:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
12 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:13:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
13 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
in this case is by emitting a `unused_unsafe` warning for all of the `unsafe`
blocks that are _within a **used** unsafe block_.
The previous code had a little HIR traversal already anyways to collect a set of
all the unsafe blocks (in order to afterwards determine which ones are unused
afterwards). This PR uses such a traversal to do additional things including logic
like _always_ warn for an `unsafe` block that’s inside of another **used**
unsafe block. The traversal is expanded to include nested closures in the same go,
this simplifies a lot of things.
The whole logic around `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` is a little complicated, there’s
some test cases of corner-cases in this PR. (The implementation involves
differentiating between whether a used unsafe block was used exclusively by
operations where `allow(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)` was active.) The main goal was
to make sure that code should compile successfully if all the `unused_unsafe`-warnings
are addressed _simultaneously_ (by removing the respective `unsafe` blocks)
no matter how complicated the patterns of `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` being
disallowed and allowed throughout the function are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One noteworthy design decision I took here: An `unsafe` block
with `allow(unused_unsafe)` **is considered used** for the purposes of
linting about redundant contained unsafe blocks. So while
```rs
fn granularity() {
unsafe { //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
warns for the outer `unsafe` block,
```rs
fn top_level_ignored() {
#[allow(unused_unsafe)]
unsafe {
#[deny(unused_unsafe)]
{
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
}
}
}
```
warns on the inner ones.
Move ty::print methods to Drop-based scope guards
Primary goal is reducing codegen of the TLS access for each closure, which shaves ~3 seconds of bootstrap time over rustc as a whole.
