Fix a bunch of typo
This PR will fix some typos detected by [typos].
I only picked the ones I was sure were spelling errors to fix, mostly in
the comments.
[typos]: https://github.com/crate-ci/typos
This PR will fix some typos detected by [typos].
I only picked the ones I was sure were spelling errors to fix, mostly in
the comments.
[typos]: https://github.com/crate-ci/typos
Rework definition of MIR phases to more closely reflect semantic concerns
Implements most of rust-lang/compiler-team#522 .
I tried my best to restrict this PR to the "core" parts of the MCP. In other words, this includes just enough changes to make the new definition of `MirPhase` make sense. That means there are a couple of FIXMEs lying around. Depending on what reviewers prefer, I can either fix them in this PR or send follow up PRs. There are also a couple other refactorings of the `rustc_mir_transform/src/lib.rs` file that I want to do in follow ups that I didn't leave explicit FIXMEs for.
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #95376 (Add `vec::Drain{,Filter}::keep_rest`)
- #100092 (Fall back when relating two opaques by substs in MIR typeck)
- #101019 (Suggest returning closure as `impl Fn`)
- #101022 (Erase late bound regions before comparing types in `suggest_dereferences`)
- #101101 (interpret: make read-pointer-as-bytes a CTFE-only error with extra information)
- #101123 (Remove `register_attr` feature)
- #101175 (Don't --bless in pre-push hook)
- #101176 (rustdoc: remove unused CSS selectors for `.table-display`)
- #101180 (Add another MaybeUninit array test with const)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
interpret: make read-pointer-as-bytes a CTFE-only error with extra information
Next step in the reaction to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99923. Also teaches Miri to implicitly strip provenance in more situations when transmuting pointers to integers, which fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2456.
Pointer-to-int transmutation during CTFE now produces a message like this:
```
= help: this code performed an operation that depends on the underlying bytes representing a pointer
= help: the absolute address of a pointer is not known at compile-time, so such operations are not supported
```
r? ``@oli-obk``
Revert let_chains stabilization
This is the revert against master, the beta revert was already done in #100538.
Bumps the stage0 compiler which already has it reverted.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #100898 (Do not report too many expr field candidates)
- #101056 (Add the syntax of references to their documentation summary.)
- #101106 (Rustdoc-Json: Retain Stripped Modules when they are imported, not when they have items)
- #101131 (CTFE: exposing pointers and calling extern fn is just impossible)
- #101141 (Simplify `get_trait_ref` fn used for `virtual_function_elimination`)
- #101146 (Various changes to logging of borrowck-related code)
- #101156 (Remove `Sync` requirement from lint pass objects)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
CTFE: exposing pointers and calling extern fn is just impossible
The remaining "needs RFC" errors are just needlessly confusing, I think -- time to get rid of that error variant. They are anyway only reachable with miri-unleashed (if at all).
r? `@oli-obk`
Before, the MIR validator used RevealAll in its ParamEnv for type
checking. This could cause false negatives in some cases due to
RevealAll ParamEnvs not always use all predicates as expected here.
Since some MIR passes like inlining use RevealAll as well, keep using
it in the MIR validator too, but when it fails usign RevealAll, also
try the check without it, to stop false negatives.
remove an ineffective check in const_prop
Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100043, only the last two commits are new.
ConstProp has a special check when reading from a local that prevents reading uninit locals. However, if that local flows into `force_allocation`, then no check fires and evaluation proceeds. So this check is not really effective at preventing accesses to uninit locals.
With https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100043, `read_immediate` and friends always fail when reading uninit locals, so I don't see why ConstProp would need a separate check. Thus I propose we remove it. This is needed to be able to do https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100085.
extra sanity check against consts pointing to mutable memory
This should be both unreachable and redundant (since we already ensure that validation only reads from read-only memory, when validating consts), but I feel like we cannot be paranoid enough here, and also if this ever fails it'll be a nicer error than the "cannot read from mutable memory" error.
Replace `Body::basic_blocks()` with field access
Since the refactoring in #98930, it is possible to borrow the basic blocks
independently from other parts of MIR by accessing the `basic_blocks` field
directly.
Replace unnecessary `Body::basic_blocks()` method with a direct field access,
which has an additional benefit of borrowing the basic blocks only.
no alignment check during interning
This should fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101034
r? `@oli-obk`
Unfortunately we don't have a self-contained testcase for this problem. I am not sure how it can be triggered...
Diagnostics migr const eval
This PR should eventually contain all diagnostic migrations for the `rustc_const_eval` crate.
r? `@davidtwco`
`@rustbot` label +A-translation
Because `PassMode::Cast` is by far the largest variant, but is
relatively rare.
This requires making `PassMode` not impl `Copy`, and `Clone` is no
longer necessary. This causes lots of sigil adjusting, but nothing very
notable.
Check projection types before inlining MIR
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100550
I'm very unhappy with this solution, having to duplicate MIR validation code, but at least it removes the ICE.
r? `@compiler-errors`
suggest `once_cell::Lazy` for non-const statics
Addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100410
Some questions:
- removing the `if` seems to include too many cases (e.g. calls to non-const functions inside a `const fn`), but this code excludes the following case:
```rust
const FOO: Foo = non_const_fn();
```
Should we suggest `once_cell` in this case as well?
- The original issue mentions suggesting `AtomicI32` instead of `Mutex<i32>`, should this PR address that as well?
Rename Machine memory hooks to suggest when they run
Some of the other memory hooks start with `before_` or `after_` to indicate that they run before or after a certain operation. These don't, so I was a bit confused as to when they are supposed to run.
`memory_read` can be read two ways in English, "memory was read" or "this is a memory read" so without the prefix this was especially ambiguous.
Erase regions better in `promote_candidate`
Use `tcx.erase_regions` instead of manually walking through the substs.... this also makes the code slightly simpler 🙈Fixes#100360Fixes#89851
Use `TraitEngine` in more places that don't specifically need `FulfillmentContext::new_in_snapshot`
Not sure if this change is worthwhile, but couldn't hurt re: chalkification
r? types
Improve size assertions.
- For any file with four or more size assertions, move them into a
separate module (as is already done for `hir.rs`).
- Add some more for AST nodes and THIR nodes.
- Put the `hir.rs` ones in alphabetical order.
r? `@lqd`
- For any file with four or more size assertions, move them into a
separate module (as is already done for `hir.rs`).
- Add some more for AST nodes and THIR nodes.
- Put the `hir.rs` ones in alphabetical order.
Deeply deny fn and raw ptrs in const generics
I think this is right -- just because we wrap a fn ptr in a wrapper type does not mean we should allow it in a const parameter.
We now reject both of these in the same way:
```
#![feature(adt_const_params)]
#[derive(Eq, PartialEq)]
struct Wrapper();
fn foo<const W: Wrapper>() {}
fn foo2<const F: fn()>() {}
```
This does regress one test (`src/test/ui/consts/refs_check_const_eq-issue-88384.stderr`), but I'm not sure it should've passed in the first place.
cc: ``@b-naber`` who introduced that test^
fixes#99641
interpret, ptr_offset_from: refactor and test too-far-apart check
We didn't have any tests for the "too far apart" message, and indeed that check mostly relied on the in-bounds check and was otherwise probably not entirely correct... so I rewrote that check, and it is before the in-bounds check so we can test it separately.
