Remove deprecated LLVM-style inline assembly
The `llvm_asm!` was deprecated back in #87590 1.56.0, with intention to remove
it once `asm!` was stabilized, which already happened in #91728 1.59.0. Now it
is time to remove `llvm_asm!` to avoid continued maintenance cost.
Closes#70173.
Closes#92794.
Closes#87612.
Closes#82065.
cc `@rust-lang/wg-inline-asm`
r? `@Amanieu`
The field is also renamed from `ident` to `name. In most cases,
we don't actually need the `Span`. A new `ident` method is added
to `VariantDef` and `FieldDef`, which constructs the full `Ident`
using `tcx.def_ident_span()`. This method is used in the cases
where we actually need an `Ident`.
This makes incremental compilation properly track changes
to the `Span`, without all of the invalidations caused by storing
a `Span` directly via an `Ident`.
Remove `NullOp::Box`
Follow up of #89030 and MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#460.
~1 month later nothing seems to be broken, apart from a small regression that #89332 (1aac85bb716c09304b313d69d30d74fe7e8e1a8e) shows could be regained by remvoing the diverging path, so it shall be safe to continue and remove `NullOp::Box` completely.
r? `@jonas-schievink`
`@rustbot` label T-compiler
CTFE eval_fn_call: use FnAbi to determine argument skipping and compatibility
This makes use of the `FnAbi` type in CTFE/Miri, which `@eddyb` has been saying for years is what we should do.^^ `FnAbi` is used to
- determine which arguments to skip (rather than the previous heuristic of skipping ZST arguments with the Rust ABI)
- impose further restrictions on whether caller and callee are consistent in how a given argument is passed
I was hoping it would also simplify the code, but that is not the case -- the previous type compatibility checks are still required (AFAIK), only the ZST skipping is gone and that took barely any code. We also need some hacks because `FnAbi` assumes a certain way of implementing `caller_location` (by passing extra arguments), but Miri can just read the caller location from the call stack so it doesn't need those arguments. (The fact that every backend has to separately implement support for these arguments seems suboptimal -- looks like this might have been better implemented on the MIR level.) To avoid having to implement those unnecessary arguments in Miri, we just compute *whether* the argument is present on the caller/callee side, but don't actually pass that argument around.
I have no idea if this looks the way `@eddyb` thinks it should look... but it makes Miri's test suite pass. ;)
One of rustc's tests fails unfortunately (`ui/const-generics/issues/issue-67739.rs`), some const generic code that is evaluated too early -- I think that should raise `TooGeneric` but instead it ICEs. My assumption is this is some FnAbi code that has not been properly tested on polymorphic code, but it might also be me calling that FnAbi code the wrong way.
r? `@oli-obk` `@eddyb`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/56166
Miri PR at https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/pull/1928
The `AggregateKind` enum ends up in the final mir `Body`. Currently,
any changes to `AdtDef` (regardless of how significant they are)
will legitimately cause the overall result of `optimized_mir` to change,
invalidating any codegen re-use involving that mir.
This will get worse once we start hashing the `Span` inside `FieldDef`
(which is itself contained in `AdtDef`).
To try to reduce these kinds of invalidations, this commit changes
`AggregateKind::Adt` to store just the `DefId`, instead of the full
`AdtDef`. This allows the result of `optimized_mir` to be unchanged
if the `AdtDef` changes in a way that doesn't actually affect any
of the MIR we build.
Remove `SymbolStr`
This was originally proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/74554#discussion_r466203544. As well as removing the icky `SymbolStr` type, it allows the removal of a lot of `&` and `*` occurrences.
Best reviewed one commit at a time.
r? `@oli-obk`
Looser check for overflowing_binary_op
Fix for issue #91636 tight check resulted in ICE, this makes the check a little looser. It seems `eq` allows comparing of `supertype` and `subtype` if `lhs = supertype` and `rhs = subtype` but not vice versa, is this intended behavior ?
Cleanup: Eliminate ConstnessAnd
This is almost a behaviour-free change and purely a refactoring. "almost" because we appear to be using the wrong ParamEnv somewhere already, and this is now exposed by failing a test using the unstable `~const` feature.
We most definitely need to review all `without_const` and at some point should probably get rid of many of them by using `TraitPredicate` instead of `TraitRef`.
This is a continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90274.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@spastorino` `@ecstatic-morse`
Nothing else makes sense, and there is no "danger" in doing so, as it only does something if there are const bounds, which are unstable. This used to happen implicitly via the inferctxt before, which was much more fragile.
fix CTFE/Miri simd_insert/extract on array-style repr(simd) types
The changed test would previously fail since `place_index` would just return the only field of `f32x4`, i.e., the array -- rather than *indexing into* the array which is what we have to do.
The new helper methods will also be needed for https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/1912.
r? ``````@oli-obk``````
require full validity when determining the discriminant of a value
This resolves (for now) the semantic question that came up in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89764: arguably, reading the discriminant of a value is 'using' that value, so we are in our right to demand full validity. Reading a discriminant is somewhat special in that it works for values of *arbitrary* type; all the other primitive MIR operations work on specific types (e.g. `bool` or an integer) and basically implicitly require validity as part of just "doing their job".
The alternative would be to just require that the discriminant itself is valid, if any -- but then what do we do for types that do not have a discriminant, which kind of validity do we check? [This code](81117ff930/compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa/src/mir/place.rs (L206-L215)) means we have to at least reject uninhabited types, but I would rather not special case that.
I don't think this can be tested in CTFE (since validity is not enforced there), I will add a compile-fail test to Miri:
```rust
#[allow(enum_intrinsics_non_enums)]
fn main() {
let i = 2u8;
std::mem::discriminant(unsafe { &*(&i as *const _ as *const bool) }); // UB
}
```
(I tried running the check even on the CTFE machines, but then it runs during ConstProp and that causes all sorts of problems. We could run it for ConstEval but not ConstProp, but that simply does not seem worth the effort currently.)
r? ``@oli-obk``
Change the Miri engine to allow configuring whether to check
initialization of integers and floats. This allows the Miri tool to
optionally check for initialization if requested by the user.
Implement -Z location-detail flag
This PR implements the `-Z location-detail` flag as described in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2091 .
`-Z location-detail=val` controls what location details are tracked when using `caller_location`. This allows users to control what location details are printed as part of panic messages, by allowing them to exclude any combination of filenames, line numbers, and column numbers. This option is intended to provide users with a way to mitigate the size impact of `#[track_caller]`.
Some measurements of the savings of this approach on an embedded binary can be found here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70579#issuecomment-942556822 .
Closes#70580 (unless people want to leave that open as a place for discussion of further improvements).
This is my first real PR to rust, so any help correcting mistakes / understanding side effects / improving my tests is appreciated :)
I have one question: RFC 2091 specified this as a debugging option (I think that is what -Z implies?). Does that mean this can never be stabilized without a separate MCP? If so, do I need to submit an MCP now, or is the initial RFC specifying this option sufficient for this to be merged as is, and then an MCP would be needed for eventual stabilization?
