We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
coverage: Optionally instrument the RHS of lazy logical operators
(This is an updated version of #124644 and #124402. Fixes #124120.)
When `||` or `&&` is used outside of a branching context (such as the condition of an `if`), the rightmost value does not directly influence any branching decision, so branch coverage instrumentation does not treat it as its own true-or-false branch.
That is a correct and useful interpretation of “branch coverage”, but might be undesirable in some contexts, as described at #124120. This PR therefore adds a new coverage level `-Zcoverage-options=condition` that behaves like branch coverage, but also adds additional branch instrumentation to the right-hand-side of lazy boolean operators.
---
As discussed at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124120#issuecomment-2092394586, this is mainly intended as an intermediate step towards fully-featured MC/DC instrumentation. It's likely that we'll eventually want to remove this coverage level (rather than stabilize it), either because it has been incorporated into MC/DC instrumentation, or because it's getting in the way of future MC/DC work. The main appeal of landing it now is so that work on tracking conditions can proceed concurrently with other MC/DC-related work.
````@rustbot```` label +A-code-coverage
Make `std::env::{set_var, remove_var}` unsafe in edition 2024
Allow calling these functions without `unsafe` blocks in editions up until 2021, but don't trigger the `unused_unsafe` lint for `unsafe` blocks containing these functions.
Fixes#27970.
Fixes#90308.
CC #124866.
coverage: Rename MC/DC `conditions_num` to `num_conditions`
Updated version of #124571, without the other changes that were split out into #125108 and #125700.
This value represents a quantity of conditions, not an ID, so the new spelling is more appropriate.
Some of the code touched by this PR could perhaps use some other changes, but I would prefer to keep this PR as a simple renaming and avoid scope creep.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
Make `body_owned_by` return the `Body` instead of just the `BodyId`
fixes#125677
Almost all `body_owned_by` callers immediately called `body`, too, so just return `Body` directly.
This makes the inline-const query feeding more robust, as all calls to `body_owned_by` will now yield a body for inline consts, too.
I have not yet figured out a good way to make `tcx.hir().body()` return an inline-const body, but that can be done as a follow-up
When a lazy logical operator (`&&` or `||`) occurs outside of an `if`
condition, it normally doesn't have any associated control-flow branch, so we
don't have an existing way to track whether it was true or false.
This patch adds special code to handle this case, by inserting extra MIR blocks
in a diamond shape after evaluating the RHS. This gives us a place to insert
the appropriate marker statements, which can then be given their own counters.
Allow calling these functions without `unsafe` blocks in editions up
until 2021, but don't trigger the `unused_unsafe` lint for `unsafe`
blocks containing these functions.
Fixes#27970.
Fixes#90308.
CC #124866.
coverage: Avoid overflow when the MC/DC condition limit is exceeded
Fix for the test failure seen in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124571#issuecomment-2099620869.
If we perform this subtraction first, it can sometimes overflow to -1 before the addition can bring its value back to 0.
That behaviour seems to be benign, but it nevertheless causes test failures in compiler configurations that check for overflow.
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
If we perform this subtraction and then add 1, the subtraction can sometimes
overflow to -1 before the addition can bring its value back to 0. That
behaviour seems to be benign, but it nevertheless causes test failures in
compiler configurations that check for overflow.
We can avoid the overflow by instead subtracting (N - 1), which is
algebraically equivalent, and more closely matches what the code is actually
trying to do.
Turn remaining non-structural-const-in-pattern lints into hard errors
This completes the implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120362 by turning our remaining future-compat lints into hard errors: indirect_structural_match and pointer_structural_match.
They have been future-compat lints for a while (indirect_structural_match for many years, pointer_structural_match since Rust 1.75 (released Dec 28, 2023)), and have shown up in dependency breakage reports since Rust 1.78 (just released on May 2, 2024). I don't expect a lot of code will still depend on them, but we will of course do a crater run.
A lot of cleanup is now possible in const_to_pat, but that is deferred to a later PR.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70861
Remove more `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing`
Because explicit importing of macros via use items is nicer (more standard and readable) than implicit importing via `#[macro_use]`. Continuing the work from #124511 and #124914.
r? `@jackh726`
Cleanup: Fix up some diagnostics
Several diagnostics contained their error code inside their primary message which is no bueno.
This PR moves them out of the message and turns them into structured error codes.
Also fixes another occurrence of `->` after a selector in a Fluent message which is not correct. I've fixed two other instances of this issue in #104345 (2022) but didn't update all instances as I've noted here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104345#issuecomment-1312705977 (“the future is now!”).
Expand `for_loops_over_fallibles` lint to lint on fallibles behind references.
Extends the scope of the (warn-by-default) lint `for_loops_over_fallibles` from just `for _ in x` where `x: Option<_>/Result<_, _>` to also cover `x: &(mut) Option<_>/Result<_>`
```rs
fn main() {
// Current lints
for _ in Some(42) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// New lints
for _ in &Some(42) {}
for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// Should not lint
for _ in Some(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter_mut() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter_mut() {}
}
```
<details><summary><code>cargo build</code> diff</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/old.out b/new.out
index 84215aa..ca195a7 100644
--- a/old.out
+++ b/new.out
`@@` -1,33 +1,93 `@@`
warning: for loop over an `Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:3:14
|
3 | for _ in Some(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(for_loops_over_fallibles)]` on by default
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
3 | while let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
3 | if let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
warning: for loop over a `Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:4:14
|
4 | for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
4 | while let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
4 | if let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
-warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 2 warnings
- Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.04s
+warning: for loop over a `&Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:7:14
+ |
+7 | for _ in &Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+7 | while let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+7 | if let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:8:14
+ |
+8 | for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+8 | while let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+8 | if let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:9:14
+ |
+9 | for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+9 | while let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+9 | if let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:10:14
+ |
+10 | for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+10 | while let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+10 | if let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 6 warnings
+ Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.02s
```
</details>
-----
Question:
* ~~Currently, the article `an` is used for `&Option`, and `&mut Option` in the lint diagnostic, since that's what `Option` uses. Is this okay or should it be changed? (likewise, `a` is used for `&Result` and `&mut Result`)~~ The article `a` is used for `&Option`, `&mut Option`, `&Result`, `&mut Result` and (as before) `Result`. Only `Option` uses `an` (as before).
`@rustbot` label +A-lint
Remove `#[macro_use] extern crate rustc middle` from numerous crates
Because explicit importing of macros via `use` items is nicer (more standard and readable) than implicit importing via `#[macro_use]`. This PR mops up some cases I didn't get to in #124511.
r? `@saethlin`
Unfortunately, we can't always offer a machine-applicable suggestion when there are subpatterns from macro expansion.
Co-Authored-By: Guillaume Boisseau <Nadrieril@users.noreply.github.com>
`InferCtxt::next_{ty,const}_var*` all take an origin, but the
`param_def_id` is almost always `None`. This commit changes them to just
take a `Span` and build the origin within the method, and adds new
methods for the rare cases where `param_def_id` might not be `None`.
This avoids a lot of tedious origin building.
Specifically:
- next_ty_var{,_id_in_universe,_in_universe}: now take `Span` instead of
`TypeVariableOrigin`
- next_ty_var_with_origin: added
- next_const_var{,_in_universe}: takes Span instead of ConstVariableOrigin
- next_const_var_with_origin: added
- next_region_var, next_region_var_in_universe: these are unchanged,
still take RegionVariableOrigin
The API inconsistency (ty/const vs region) seems worth it for the
large conciseness improvements.
coverage: Branch coverage support for let-else and if-let
This PR adds branch coverage instrumentation for let-else and if-let, including let-chains.
This lifts two of the limitations listed at #124118.
Some hir cleanups
It seemed odd to not put `AnonConst` in the arena, compared with the other types that we did put into an arena. This way we can also give it a `Span` without growing a lot of other HIR data structures because of the extra field.
r? compiler
Use `tcx.types.unit` instead of `Ty::new_unit(tcx)`
I don't think there is any need for the function, given that we can just access the `.types`, similarly to all other primitives?
coverage: Avoid hard-coded values when visiting logical ops
This is a tiny little thing that I noticed during the final review of #123409, and I didn't want to hold up the whole PR just for this.
Instead of separately hard-coding the operation being visited, we can get it from the match arm pattern by using an as-pattern.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
MCDC coverage: support nested decision coverage
#123409 provided the initial MCDC coverage implementation.
As referenced in #124144, it does not currently support "nested" decisions, like the following example :
```rust
fn nested_if_in_condition(a: bool, b: bool, c: bool) {
if a && if b || c { true } else { false } {
say("yes");
} else {
say("no");
}
}
```
Note that there is an if-expression (`if b || c ...`) embedded inside a boolean expression in the decision of an outer if-expression.
This PR proposes a workaround for this cases, by introducing a Decision context stack, and by handing several `temporary condition bitmaps` instead of just one.
When instrumenting boolean expressions, if the current node is a leaf condition (i.e. not a `||`/`&&` logical operator nor a `!` not operator), we insert a new decision context, such that if there are more boolean expressions inside the condition, they are handled as separate expressions.
On the codegen LLVM side, we allocate as many `temp_cond_bitmap`s as necessary to handle the maximum encountered decision depth.
Add decision_depth field to TVBitmapUpdate/CondBitmapUpdate statements
Add decision_depth field to BcbMappingKinds MCDCBranch and MCDCDecision
Add decision_depth field to MCDCBranchSpan and MCDCDecisionSpan
deref patterns: lower deref patterns to MIR
This lowers deref patterns to MIR. This is a bit tricky because this is the first kind of pattern that requires storing a value in a temporary. Thanks to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123324 false edges are no longer a problem.
The thing I'm not confident about is the handling of fake borrows. This PR ignores any fake borrows inside a deref pattern. We are guaranteed to at least fake borrow the place of the first pointer value, which could be enough, but I'm not certain.
This handles using deref patterns to choose the correct match arm. This
does not handle bindings or guards.
Co-authored-by: Deadbeef <ent3rm4n@gmail.com>
Implement Modified Condition/Decision Coverage
This is an implementation based on llvm backend support (>= 18) by `@evodius96` and branch coverage support by `@Zalathar.`
### Major changes:
* Add -Zcoverage-options=mcdc as switch. Now coverage options accept either `no-branch`, `branch`, or `mcdc`. `mcdc` also enables `branch` because it is essential to work.
* Add coverage mapping for MCDCBranch and MCDCDecision. Note that MCDCParameter evolves from llvm 18 to llvm 19. The mapping in rust side mainly references to 19 and is casted to 18 types in llvm wrapper.
* Add wrapper for mcdc instrinc functions from llvm. And inject associated statements to mir.
* Add BcbMappingKind::Decision, I'm not sure is it proper but can't find a better way temporarily.
* Let coverage-dump support parsing MCDCBranch and MCDCDecision from llvm ir.
* Add simple tests to check whether mcdc works.
* Same as clang, currently rustc does not generate instrument for decision with more than 6 condtions or only 1 condition due to considerations of resource.
### Implementation Details
1. To get information about conditions and decisions, `MCDCState` in `BranchInfoBuilder` is used during hir lowering to mir. For expressions with logical op we call `Builder::visit_coverage_branch_operation` to record its sub conditions, generate condition ids for them and save their spans (to construct the span of whole decision). This process mainly references to the implementation in clang and is described in comments over `MCDCState::record_conditions`. Also true marks and false marks introduced by branch coverage are used to detect where the decision evaluation ends: the next id of the condition == 0.
2. Once the `MCDCState::decision_stack` popped all recorded conditions, we can ensure that the decision is checked over and push it into `decision_spans`. We do not manually insert decision span to avoid complexity from then_else_break in nested if scopes.
3. When constructing CoverageSpans, add condition info to BcbMappingKind::Branch and decision info to BcbMappingKind::Decision. If the branch mapping has non-zero condition id it will be transformed to MCDCBranch mapping and insert `CondBitmapUpdate` statements to its evaluated blocks. While decision bcb mapping will insert `TestVectorBitmapUpdate` in all its end blocks.
### Usage
```bash
echo "[build]\nprofiler=true" >> config.toml
./x build --stage 1
./x test tests/coverage/mcdc_if.rs
```
to build the compiler and run tests.
```shell
export PATH=path/to/llvm-build:$PATH
rustup toolchain link mcdc build/host/stage1
cargo +mcdc rustc --bin foo -- -Cinstrument-coverage -Zcoverage-options=mcdc
cd target/debug
LLVM_PROFILE_FILE="foo.profraw" ./foo
llvm-profdata merge -sparse foo.profraw -o foo.profdata
llvm-cov show ./foo -instr-profile=foo.profdata --show-mcdc
```
to check "foo" code.
### Problems to solve
For now decision mapping will insert statements to its all end blocks, which may be optimized by inserting a final block of the decision. To do this we must also trace the evaluated value at each end of the decision and join them separately.
This implementation is not heavily tested so there should be some unrevealed issues. We are going to check our rust products in the next. Please let me know if you had any suggestions or comments.
Move confusing comment about otherwise blocks in `lower_match_tree`
This comment was historically inside a block guarded by `if let Some(otherwise_block) = otherwise`.
When #120978 made the “otherwise block” non-optional, it also flattened that region of code. Doing so left this comment awkwardly stranded above an unrelated line of code, without its original context.
We can restore that context by moving it above the declaration of `otherwise`.
r? ``@Nadrieril``
This comment was historically inside a block guarded by
`if let Some(otherwise_block) = otherwise`.
When #120978 made the otherwise block non-optional, it also flattened that
region of code. Doing so left this comment awkwardly stranded above an
unrelated line of code, without its original context.
We can restore that context by moving it above the declaration of `otherwise`.
The suggestion to use `let else` with an uninitialized refutable `let`
statement was erroneous: `let else` cannot be used with deferred
initialization.
Match ergonomics: implement "`&`pat everywhere"
Implements the eat-two-layers (feature gate `and_pat_everywhere`, all editions) ~and the eat-one-layer (feature gate `and_eat_one_layer_2024`, edition 2024 only, takes priority on that edition when both feature gates are active)~ (EDIT: will be done in later PR) semantics.
cc #123076
r? ``@Nadrieril``
``@rustbot`` label A-patterns A-edition-2024
match lowering: make false edges more precise
When lowering match expressions, we add false edges to hide details of the lowering from borrowck. Morally we pretend we're testing the patterns (and guards) one after the other in order. See the tests for examples. Problem is, the way we implement this today is too coarse for deref patterns.
In deref patterns, a pattern like `deref [1, x]` matches on a `Vec` by creating a temporary to store the output of the call to `deref()` and then uses that to continue matching. Here the pattern has a binding, which we set up after the pre-binding block. Problem is, currently the false edges tell borrowck that the pre-binding block can be reached from a previous arm as well, so the `deref()` temporary may not be initialized. This triggers an error when we try to use the binding `x`.
We could call `deref()` a second time, but this opens the door to soundness issues if the deref impl is weird. Instead in this PR I rework false edges a little bit.
What we need from false edges is a (fake) path from each candidate to the next, specifically from candidate C's pre-binding block to next candidate D's pre-binding block. Today, we link the pre-binding blocks directly. In this PR, I link them indirectly by choosing an earlier node on D's success path. Specifically, I choose the earliest block on D's success path that doesn't make a loop (if I chose e.g. the start block of the whole match (which is on the success path of all candidates), that would make a loop). This turns out to be rather straightforward to implement.
r? `@matthewjasper` if you have the bandwidth, otherwise let me know
