Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
Box AssertKind
r? `@nnethercote` this feels like your kind of thing
I want to add a new variant to `AssertKind` that needs 3 operands, and that ends up breaking a bunch of size assertions. So... what if we go the opposite direction first; shrinking `AssertKind` by boxing it?
Don't validate constants in const propagation
Validation is neither necessary nor desirable.
The constant validation is already omitted at mir-opt-level >= 3, so there there are not changes in MIR test output (the propagation of invalid constants is covered by an existing test in tests/mir-opt/const_prop/invalid_constant.rs).
Previously, when borrowck failed it would taint all promoteds within the MIR
body. An attempt to evaluated the promoteds would subsequently fail with
spurious "note: erroneous constant used". For example:
```console
...
note: erroneous constant used
--> tests/ui/borrowck/tainted-promoteds.rs:7:9
|
7 | a = &0 * &1 * &2 * &3;
| ^^
note: erroneous constant used
--> tests/ui/borrowck/tainted-promoteds.rs:7:14
|
7 | a = &0 * &1 * &2 * &3;
| ^^
note: erroneous constant used
--> tests/ui/borrowck/tainted-promoteds.rs:7:19
|
7 | a = &0 * &1 * &2 * &3;
| ^^
note: erroneous constant used
--> tests/ui/borrowck/tainted-promoteds.rs:7:24
|
7 | a = &0 * &1 * &2 * &3;
| ^^
```
Borrowck failure doesn't indicate that there is anything wrong with
promoteds. Leave them untainted.
Validation is neither necessary nor desirable.
The validation is already omitted at mir-opt-level >= 3, so there there
are not changes in MIR test output (the propagation of invalid constants
is covered by an existing test in tests/mir-opt/const_prop/invalid_constant.rs).
coverage: Don't underflow column number
I noticed this when running coverage on a debug build of rustc. There
may be other places that do this but I'm just fixing the one I hit.
r? `@wesleywiser` `@richkadel`
They're semantically the same, so this means the backends don't need to handle the intrinsic and means fewer MIR basic blocks in pointer arithmetic code.
Switch to `EarlyBinder` for `explicit_item_bounds`
Part of the work to finish https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105779.
This PR adds `EarlyBinder` to the return type of the `explicit_item_bounds` query and removes `bound_explicit_item_bounds`.
r? `@compiler-errors` (hope it's okay to request you, since you reviewed #110299 and #110498😃)
Normalize types and consts in MIR opts.
Some passes were using a non-RevealAll param_env, which is needlessly restrictive in mir-opts.
As a drive-by, we normalize all constants, since just normalizing their types is not enough.
Add `intrinsics::transmute_unchecked`
This takes a whole 3 lines in `compiler/` since it lowers to `CastKind::Transmute` in MIR *exactly* the same as the existing `intrinsics::transmute` does, it just doesn't have the fancy checking in `hir_typeck`.
Added to enable experimenting with the request in <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106281#issuecomment-1496648190> and because the portable-simd folks might be interested for dependently-sized array-vector conversions.
It also simplifies a couple places in `core`.
See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/108442#issuecomment-1474777273, where `CastKind::Transmute` was added having exactly these semantics before the lang meeting (which I wasn't in) independently expressed interest.
Remove the size of locals heuristic in MIR inlining
This heuristic doesn't necessarily correlate to complexity of the MIR Body. In particular, a lot of straight-line code in MIR tends to never reuse a local, even though any optimizer would effectively reuse the storage or just put everything in registers. So it doesn't even necessarily make sense that this would be a stack size heuristic.
So... what happens if we just delete the heuristic? The benchmark suite improves significantly. Less heuristics better?
r? `@cjgillot`
Run various queries from other queries instead of explicitly in phases
These are just legacy leftovers from when rustc didn't have a query system. While there are more cleanups of this sort that can be done here, I want to land them in smaller steps.
This phased order of query invocations was already a lie, as any query that looks at types (e.g. the wf checks run before) can invoke e.g. const eval which invokes borrowck, which invokes typeck, ...
This takes a whole 3 lines in `compiler/` since it lowers to `CastKind::Transmute` in MIR *exactly* the same as the existing `intrinsics::transmute` does, it just doesn't have the fancy checking in `hir_typeck`.
Added to enable experimenting with the request in <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106281#issuecomment-1496648190> and because the portable-simd folks might be interested for dependently-sized array-vector conversions.
It also simplifies a couple places in `core`.
Evaluate place expression in `PlaceMention`
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102256 introduces a `PlaceMention(place)` MIR statement which keep trace of `let _ = place` statements from surface rust, but without semantics.
This PR proposes to change the behaviour of `let _ =` patterns with respect to the borrow-checker to verify that the bound place is live.
Specifically, consider this code:
```rust
let _ = {
let a = 5;
&a
};
```
This passes borrowck without error on stable. Meanwhile, replacing `_` by `_: _` or `_p` errors with "error[E0597]: `a` does not live long enough", [see playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=c448d25a7c205dc95a0967fe96bccce8).
This PR *does not* change how `_` patterns behave with respect to initializedness: it remains ok to bind a moved-from place to `_`.
The relevant test is `tests/ui/borrowck/let_underscore_temporary.rs`. Crater check found no regression.
For consistency, this PR changes miri to evaluate the place found in `PlaceMention`, and report eventual dangling pointers found within it.
r? `@RalfJung`
Add offset_of! macro (RFC 3308)
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3308 (tracking issue #106655) by adding the built in macro `core::mem::offset_of`. Two of the future possibilities are also implemented:
* Nested field accesses (without array indexing)
* DST support (for `Sized` fields)
I wrote this a few months ago, before the RFC merged. Now that it's merged, I decided to rebase and finish it.
cc `@thomcc` (RFC author)
Deduplicate unreachable blocks, for real this time
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106428 (in particular 41eda69516) we noticed that inlining `unreachable_unchecked` can produce duplicate unreachable blocks. So we improved two MIR optimizations: `SimplifyCfg` was given a simplify to deduplicate unreachable blocks, then `InstCombine` was given a combiner to deduplicate switch targets that point at the same block. The problem is that change doesn't actually work.
Our current pass order is
```
SimplifyCfg (does nothing relevant to this situation)
Inline (produces multiple unreachable blocks)
InstCombine (doesn't do anything here, oops)
SimplifyCfg (produces the duplicate SwitchTargets that InstCombine is looking for)
```
So in here, I have factored out the specific function from `InstCombine` and placed it inside the simplify that produces the case it is looking for. This should ensure that it runs in the scenario it was designed for.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/110551
r? `@cjgillot`
