It's conditioned on `only-x86_64` because it doesn't reliably fail on
other platforms, it's optimization dependent and failed to ICE post-PGO
in
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132300#issuecomment-2443279042>.
Remove this test for now without prejudice against relanding the test in
a more reliable form.
Cleanup: Move an impl-Trait check from AST validation to AST lowering
Namely the one that rejects `impl Trait` in qself types and non-final path segments.
There's no good reason to perform this during AST validation.
We have better infrastructure in place in the AST lowerer (`ImplTraitContext`).
This shaves off a lot of code.
We now lower `impl Trait` in bad positions to `{type error}` which allows us to
remove a special case from HIR ty lowering.
Coincidentally fixes#126725. Well, it only *masks* it by passing `{type error}` to HIR analysis instead of a "bad" opaque. I was able to find a new reproducer for it. See the issue.
Emit future-incompatibility lint when calling/declaring functions with vectors that require missing target feature
On some architectures, vector types may have a different ABI depending on whether the relevant target features are enabled. (The ABI when the feature is disabled is often not specified, but LLVM implements some de-facto ABI.)
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/235, this turns out to very easily lead to unsound code.
This commit makes it a post-monomorphization error to declare or call functions using those vector types in a context in which the corresponding target features are disabled, if using an ABI for which the difference is relevant. This ensures that these functions are always called with a consistent ABI.
See the [nomination comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127731#issuecomment-2288558187) for more discussion.
r? RalfJung
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116558
On some architectures, vector types may have a different ABI when
relevant target features are enabled.
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/235, this
turns out to very easily lead to unsound code.
This commit makes it an error to declare or call functions using those
vector types in a context in which the corresponding target features are
disabled, if using an ABI for which the difference is relevant.
Represent trait constness as a distinct predicate
cc `@rust-lang/project-const-traits`
r? `@ghost` for now
Also mirrored everything that is written below on this hackmd here: https://hackmd.io/`@compiler-errors/r12zoixg1l`
# Tl;dr:
* This PR removes the bulk of the old effect desugaring.
* This PR reimplements most of the effect desugaring as a new predicate and set of a couple queries. I believe it majorly simplifies the implementation and allows us to move forward more easily on its implementation.
I'm putting this up both as a request for comments and a vibe-check, but also as a legitimate implementation that I'd like to see land (though no rush of course on that last part).
## Background
### Early days
Once upon a time, we represented trait constness in the param-env and in `TraitPredicate`. This was very difficult to implement correctly; it had bugs and was also incomplete; I don't think this was anyone's fault though, it was just the limit of experimental knowledge we had at that point.
Dealing with `~const` within predicates themselves meant dealing with constness all throughout the trait solver. This was difficult to keep track of, and afaict was not handled well with all the corners of candidate assembly.
Specifically, we had to (in various places) remap constness according to the param-env constness:
574b64a97f/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L1498)
This was annoying and manual and also error prone.
### Beginning of the effects desugaring
Later on, #113210 reimplemented a new desugaring for const traits via a `<const HOST: bool>` predicate. This essentially "reified" the const checking and separated it from any of the remapping or separate tracking in param-envs. For example, if I was in a const-if-const environment, but I wanted to call a trait that was non-const, this reification would turn the constness mismatch into a simple *type* mismatch of the effect parameter.
While this was a monumental step towards straightening out const trait checking in the trait system, it had its own issues, since that meant that the constness of a trait (or any item within it, like an associated type) was *early-bound*. This essentially meant that `<T as Trait>::Assoc` was *distinct* from `<T as ~const Trait>::Assoc`, which was bad.
### Associated-type bound based effects desugaring
After this, #120639 implemented a new effects desugaring. This used an associated type to more clearly represent the fact that the constness is not an input parameter of a trait, but a property that could be computed of a impl. The write-up linked in that PR explains it better than I could.
However, I feel like it really reached the limits of what can comfortably be expressed in terms of associated type and trait calculus. Also, `<const HOST: bool>` remains a synthetic const parameter, which is observable in nested items like RPITs and closures, and comes with tons of its own hacks in the astconv and middle layer.
For example, there are pieces of unintuitive code that are needed to represent semantics like elaboration, and eventually will be needed to make error reporting intuitive, and hopefully in the future assist us in implementing built-in traits (eventually we'll want something like `~const Fn` trait bounds!).
elaboration hack: 8069f8d17a/compiler/rustc_type_ir/src/elaborate.rs (L133-L195)
trait bound remapping hack for diagnostics: 8069f8d17a/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/error_reporting/traits/fulfillment_errors.rs (L2370-L2413)
I want to be clear that I don't think this is a issue of implementation quality or anything like that; I think it's simply a very clear sign that we're using types and traits in a way that they're not fundamentally supposed to be used, especially given that constness deserves to be represented as a first-class concept.
### What now?
This PR implements a new desugaring for const traits. Specifically, it introduces a `HostEffect` predicate to represent the obligation an impl is const, rather than using associated type bounds and the compat trait that exists for effects today.
### `HostEffect` predicate
A `HostEffect` clause has two parts -- the `TraitRef` we're trying to prove, and a `HostPolarity::{Maybe, Const}`.
`HostPolarity::Const` corresponds to `T: const Trait` bounds, which must *always* be proven as const, and which can be written in any context. These are lowered directly into the predicates of an item, since they're not "context-specific".
On the other hand, `HostPolarity::Maybe` corresponds to `T: ~const Trait` bounds which must only exist in a conditionally-const context like a method in a `#[const_trait]`, or a `const fn` free function. We do not lower these immediately into the predicates of an item; instead, we collect them into a new query called the **`const_conditions`**. These are the set of trait refs that we need to prove have const implementations for an item to be const.
Notably, they're represented as bare (poly) trait refs because they are meant to be paired back together with a `HostPolarity` when they're being registered in typeck (see next section).
For example, given:
```rust
const fn foo<T: ~const A + const B>() {}
```
`foo`'s const conditions would contain `T: A`, but not `T: B`. On the flip side, foo's predicates (`predicates_of`) query would contain `HostEffect(T: B, HostPolarity::Const)` but not `HostEffect(T: A, HostPolarity::Maybe)` since we don't need to prove that predicate in a non-const environment (and it's not even the right predicate to prove in an unconditionally const environment).
### Type checking const bodies
When type checking bodies in HIR, when we encounter a call expression, we additionally register the callee item's const conditions with the `HostPolarity` from the body we're typechecking (`Const` for unconditionally const things like `const`/`static` items, and `Maybe` for conditionally const things like const fns; and we don't register `HostPolarity` predicates for non-const bodies).
When type-checking a conditionally const body, we augment its param-env with `HostEffect(..., Maybe)` predicates.
### Checking that const impls are WF
We extend the logic in `compare_method_predicate_entailment` to also check the const-conditions of the impl method, to make sure that we error for:
```rust
#[const_trait] Bar {}
#[const_trait] trait Foo {
fn method<T: Bar>();
}
impl Foo for () {
fn method<T: ~const Bar>() {} // stronger assumption!
}
```
We also extend the WF check for impls to register the const conditions of the trait that is being implemented. This is to make sure we error for:
```rust
#[const_trait] trait Bar {}
#[const_trait] trait Foo<T> where T: ~const Bar {}
impl<T> const Foo<T> for () {}
//~^ `T: ~const Bar` is missing!
```
### Proving a `HostEffect` predicate
We have several ways of proving a `HostEffect` predicate:
1. Matching a `HostEffect` predicate from the param-env
2. From an impl - we do impl selection very similar to confirming a trait goal, except we filter for only const impls, and we additionally register the impl's const conditions (i.e. the impl's `~const` where clauses).
Later I expect that we will add more built-in implementations for things like `Fn`.
## What next?
After this PR, I'd like to split out the work more so it can proceed in parallel and probably amongst others that are not me.
* Register `HostEffect` goal for places in HIR typeck that correspond to call terminators, like autoderef.
* Make traits in libstd const again.
* Probably need to impl host effect preds in old solver.
* Implement built-in `HostEffect` rules for traits like `Fn`.
* Rip out const checking from MIR altogether.
## So what?
This ends up being super convenient basically everywhere in the compiler. Due to the design of the new trait solver, we end up having an almost parallel structure to the existing trait and projection predicates for assembling `HostEffect` predicates; adding new candidates and especially new built-in implementations is now basically trivial, and it's quite straightforward to understand the confirmation logic for these predicates.
Same with diagnostics reporting; since we have predicates which represent the obligation to prove an impl is const, we can simplify and make these diagnostics richer without having to write a ton of logic to intercept and rewrite the existing `Compat` trait errors.
Finally, it gives us a much more straightforward path for supporting the const effect on the old trait solver. I'm personally quite passionate about getting const trait support into the hands of users without having to wait until the new solver lands[^1], so I think after this PR lands we can begin to gauge how difficult it would be to implement constness in the old trait solver too. This PR will not do this yet.
[^1]: Though this is not a prerequisite or by any means the only justification for this PR.
Dont ICE when computing coverage of synthetic async closure body
I'm not totally certain if this is *right*, but at least it doesn't ICE.
The issue is that we end up generating two MIR bodies for each async closure, since the `FnOnce` and `Fn`/`FnMut` implementations have different borrowing behavior of their captured variables. They should ideally both contribute to the coverage, since those MIR bodies are (*to the user*) the same code and should have no behavioral differences.
This PR at least suppresses the ICEs, and then I guess worst case we can fix this the right way later.
r? Zalathar or re-roll
Fixes#131190
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
Compiler & its UI tests: Rename remaining occurrences of "object safe" to "dyn compatible"
Follow-up to #130826.
Part of #130852.
1. 1st commit: Fix stupid oversights. Should've been part of #130826.
2. 2nd commit: Rename the unstable feature `object_safe_for_dispatch` to `dyn_compatible_for_dispatch`. Might not be worth the churn, you decide.
3. 3rd commit: Apply the renaming to all UI tests (contents and paths).
Avoid ICE in coverage builds with bad `#[coverage(..)]` attributes
This code can sometimes witness malformed coverage attributes in builds that are going to fail, so use `span_delayed_bug` to avoid an inappropriate ICE in that case.
Fixes#127880.
This code can sometimes witness malformed coverage attributes in builds that
are going to fail, so use `span_delayed_bug` to avoid an inappropriate ICE in
that case.
Fix error span if arg to `asm!()` is a macro call
Fixes#129503
When the argument to `asm!()` is a macro call, e.g. `asm!(concat!("abc", "{} pqr"))`, and there's an error in the resulting template string, we do not take into account the presence of this macro call while computing the error span. This PR fixes that. Now we will use the entire thing between the parenthesis of `asm!()` as the error span in this situation e.g. for `asm!(concat!("abc", "{} pqr"))` the error span will be `concat!("abc", "{} pqr")`.
When the template string passed to asm!() is produced by
a macro call like concat!() we were producing wrong error
spans. Now in the case of a macro call we just use the entire
arg to asm!(), macro call and all, as the error span.
Fix: ices on virtual-function-elimination about principal trait
Extract `load_vtable` function to ensure the `virtual_function_elimination` option is always checked.
It's okay not to use `llvm.type.checked.load` to load the vtable if there is no principal trait.
Fixes#123955Fixes#124092
Correct outdated object size limit
The comment here about 48 bit addresses being enough was written in 2016 but was made incorrect in 2019 by 5-level paging, and then persisted for another 5 years before being noticed and corrected.
The bolding of the "exclusive" part is merely to call attention to something I missed when reading it and doublechecking the math.
try-job: i686-msvc
try-job: test-various
Add recursion limit to FFI safety lint
Fixes#130310
Now we check against `tcx.recursion_limit()` and raise an error if it the limit is reached instead of overflowing the stack.
layout computation: gracefully handle unsized types in unexpected locations
This PR reworks the layout computation to eagerly return an error when encountering an unsized field where a sized field was expected, rather than delaying a bug and attempting to recover a layout. This is required, because with trivially false where clauses like `[T]: Sized`, any field can possible be an unsized type, without causing a compile error.
Since this PR removes the `delayed_bug` method from the `LayoutCalculator` trait, it essentially becomes the same as the `HasDataLayout` trait, so I've also refactored the `LayoutCalculator` to be a simple wrapper struct around a type that implements `HasDataLayout`.
The majority of the diff is whitespace changes, so viewing with whitespace ignored is advised.
implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123169#issuecomment-2025788480
r? `@compiler-errors` or compiler
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123134
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124182
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126939
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127737
For structs that cannot be unsized, the layout algorithm sometimes moves
unsized fields to the end of the struct, which circumvented the error
for unexpected unsized fields and returned an unsized layout anyway.
This commit makes it so that the unexpected unsized error is always
returned for structs that cannot be unsized, allowing us to remove an
old hack and fixing some old ICE.
