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
Cleanup: Rename `HAS_PROJECTIONS` to `HAS_ALIASES` etc.
The name of the bitflag `HAS_PROJECTIONS` and of its corresponding method `has_projections` is quite historical dating back to a time when projections were the only kind of alias type.
I think it's time to update it to clear up any potential confusion for newcomers and to reduce unnecessary friction during contributor onboarding.
r? types
change `NormalizesTo` to fully structurally normalize
notes in https://hackmd.io/wZ016dE4QKGIhrOnHLlThQ
need to also update the dev-guide once this PR lands. in short, the setup is now as follows:
`normalizes-to` internally implements one step normalization, applying that normalization to the `goal.predicate.term` causes the projected term to get recursively normalized. With this `normalizes-to` normalizes until the projected term is rigid, meaning that we normalize as many steps necessary, but at least 1.
To handle rigid aliases, we add another candidate only if the 1 to inf step normalization failed. With this `normalizes-to` is now full structural normalization. We can now change `AliasRelate` to simply emit `normalizes-to` goals for the rhs and lhs.
This avoids the concerns from https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/103 and generally feels cleaner
Try using a `dyn Debug` trait object instead of a closure
These closures were introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93098
let's see if we can't use fmt::Arguments instead
cc `@Aaron1011`
coverage: Remove useless constants
After #122972 and #123419, these constants don't serve any useful purpose, so get rid of them.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
CFI: Support function pointers for trait methods
Adds support for both CFI and KCFI for function pointers to trait methods by attaching both concrete and abstract types to functions.
KCFI does this through generation of a `ReifyShim` on any function pointer for a method that could go into a vtable, and keeping this separate from `ReifyShim`s that are *intended* for vtable us by setting a `ReifyReason` on them.
CFI does this by setting both the concrete and abstract type on every instance.
This should land after #123024 or a similar PR, as it diverges the implementation of CFI vs KCFI.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Check `x86_64` size assertions on `aarch64`, too
(Context: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Checking.20size.20assertions.20on.20aarch64.3F)
Currently the compiler has around 30 sets of `static_assert_size!` for various size-critical data structures (e.g. various IR nodes), guarded by `#[cfg(all(target_arch = "x86_64", target_pointer_width = "64"))]`.
(Presumably this cfg avoids having to maintain separate size values for 32-bit targets and unusual 64-bit targets. Apparently it may have been necessary before the i128/u128 alignment changes, too.)
This is slightly incovenient for people on aarch64 workstations (e.g. Macs), because the assertions normally aren't checked until we push to a PR. So this PR adds `aarch64` to the `#[cfg(..)]` guarding all of those assertions in the compiler.
---
Implemented with a simple find/replace. Verified by manually inspecting each `static_assert_size!` in `compiler/`, and checking that either the replacement succeeded, or adding aarch64 wouldn't have been appropriate.
Assert that args are actually compatible with their generics, rather than just their count
Right now we just check that the number of args is right, rather than actually checking the kinds. Uplift a helper fn that I wrote from trait selection to do just that. Found a couple bugs along the way.
r? `@lcnr` or `@fmease` (or anyone really lol)
pattern analysis: fix union handling
Little known fact: rust supports union patterns. Exhaustiveness handles them soundly but reports nonsensical missing patterns. This PR fixes the reported patterns and documents what we're doing.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Rename `expose_addr` to `expose_provenance`
`expose_addr` is a bad name, an address is just a number and cannot be exposed. The operation is actually about the provenance of the pointer.
This PR thus changes the name of the method to `expose_provenance` without changing its return type. There is sufficient precedence for returning a useful value from an operation that does something else without the name indicating such, e.g. [`Option::insert`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/option/enum.Option.html#method.insert) and [`MaybeUninit::write`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/mem/union.MaybeUninit.html#method.write).
Returning the address is merely convenient, not a fundamental part of the operation. This is implied by the fact that integers do not have provenance since
```rust
let addr = ptr.addr();
ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
must behave exactly like
```rust
let addr = ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
as the result of `ptr.expose_provenance()` and `ptr.addr()` is the same integer. Therefore, this PR removes the `#[must_use]` annotation on the function and updates the documentation to reflect the important part.
~~An alternative name would be `expose_provenance`. I'm not at all opposed to that, but it makes a stronger implication than we might want that the provenance of the pointer returned by `ptr::with_exposed_provenance`[^1] is the same as that what was exposed, which is not yet specified as such IIUC. IMHO `expose` does not make that connection.~~
A previous version of this PR suggested `expose` as name, libs-api [decided on](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122964#issuecomment-2033194319) `expose_provenance` to keep the symmetry with `with_exposed_provenance`.
CC `@RalfJung`
r? libs-api
[^1]: I'm using the new name for `from_exposed_addr` suggested by #122935 here.
Assert `FnDef` kind
Only found one bug, where we were using the variant def id rather than its ctor def id to make the `FnDef` for a `type_of`
r? fmease
rename ptr::from_exposed_addr -> ptr::with_exposed_provenance
As discussed on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/To.20expose.20or.20not.20to.20expose/near/427757066).
The old name, `from_exposed_addr`, makes little sense as it's not the address that is exposed, it's the provenance. (`ptr.expose_addr()` stays unchanged as we haven't found a better option yet. The intended interpretation is "expose the provenance and return the address".)
The new name nicely matches `ptr::without_provenance`.
Make inductive cycles always ambiguous
This makes inductive cycles always result in ambiguity rather than be treated like a stack-dependent error.
This has some interactions with specialization, and so breaks a few UI tests that I don't agree should've ever worked in the first place, and also breaks a handful of crates in a way that I don't believe is a problem.
On the bright side, it puts us in a better spot when it comes to eventually enabling coinduction everywhere.
## Results
This was cratered in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116494#issuecomment-2008657494, which boils down to two regressions:
* `lu_packets` - This code should have never compiled in the first place. More below.
* **ALL** other regressions are due to `commit_verify@0.11.0-beta.1` (edit: and `commit_verify@0.10.x`) - This actually seems to be fixed in version `0.11.0-beta.5`, which is the *most* up to date version, but it's still prerelease on crates.io so I don't think cargo ends up picking `beta.5` when building dependent crates.
### `lu_packets`
Firstly, this crate uses specialization, so I think it's automatically worth breaking. However, I've minimized [the regression](https://crater-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/pr-116494-3/try%23d614ed876e31a5f3ad1d0fbf848fcdab3a29d1d8/gh/lcdr.lu_packets/log.txt) to:
```rust
// Upstream crate
pub trait Serialize {}
impl Serialize for &() {}
impl<S> Serialize for &[S] where for<'a> &'a S: Serialize {}
// ----------------------------------------------------------------------- //
// Downstream crate
#![feature(specialization)]
#![allow(incomplete_features, unused)]
use upstream::Serialize;
trait Replica {
fn serialize();
}
impl<T> Replica for T {
default fn serialize() {}
}
impl<T> Replica for Option<T>
where
for<'a> &'a T: Serialize,
{
fn serialize() {}
}
```
Specifically this fails when computing the specialization graph for the `downstream` crate.
The code ends up cycling on `&[?0]: Serialize` when we equate `&?0 = &[?1]` during impl matching, which ends up needing to prove `&[?1]: Serialize`, which since cycles are treated like ambiguity, ends up in a **fatal overflow**. For some reason this requires two crates, squashing them into one crate doesn't work.
Side-note: This code is subtly order dependent. When minimizing, I ended up having the code start failing on `nightly` very easily after removing and reordering impls. This seems to me all the more reason to remove this behavior altogether.
## Side-note: Item Bounds (edit: this was fixed independently in #121123)
Due to the changes in #120584 where we now consider an alias's item bounds *and* all the item bounds of the alias's nested self type aliases, I've had to add e6b64c6194 which is a hack to make sure we're not eagerly normalizing bounds that have nothing to do with the predicate we're trying to solve, and which result in.
This is fixed in a more principled way in #121123.
---
r? lcnr for an initial review
Add `Ord::cmp` for primitives as a `BinOp` in MIR
Update: most of this OP was written months ago. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118310#issuecomment-2016940014 below for where we got to recently that made it ready for review.
---
There are dozens of reasonable ways to implement `Ord::cmp` for integers using comparison, bit-ops, and branches. Those differences are irrelevant at the rust level, however, so we can make things better by adding `BinOp::Cmp` at the MIR level:
1. Exactly how to implement it is left up to the backends, so LLVM can use whatever pattern its optimizer best recognizes and cranelift can use whichever pattern codegens the fastest.
2. By not inlining those details for every use of `cmp`, we drastically reduce the amount of MIR generated for `derive`d `PartialOrd`, while also making it more amenable to MIR-level optimizations.
Having extremely careful `if` ordering to μoptimize resource usage on broadwell (#63767) is great, but it really feels to me like libcore is the wrong place to put that logic. Similarly, using subtraction [tricks](https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#CopyIntegerSign) (#105840) is arguably even nicer, but depends on the optimizer understanding it (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/73417) to be practical. Or maybe [bitor is better than add](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/representing-in-ir/67369/2?u=scottmcm)? But maybe only on a future version that [has `or disjoint` support](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-add-or-disjoint-flag/75036?u=scottmcm)? And just because one of those forms happens to be good for LLVM, there's no guarantee that it'd be the same form that GCC or Cranelift would rather see -- especially given their very different optimizers. Not to mention that if LLVM gets a spaceship intrinsic -- [which it should](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Suboptimal.20inlining.20in.20std.20function.20.60binary_search.60/near/404250586) -- we'll need at least a rustc intrinsic to be able to call it.
As for simplifying it in Rust, we now regularly inline `{integer}::partial_cmp`, but it's quite a large amount of IR. The best way to see that is with 8811efa88b (diff-d134c32d028fbe2bf835fef2df9aca9d13332dd82284ff21ee7ebf717bfa4765R113) -- I added a new pre-codegen MIR test for a simple 3-tuple struct, and this PR change it from 36 locals and 26 basic blocks down to 24 locals and 8 basic blocks. Even better, as soon as the construct-`Some`-then-match-it-in-same-BB noise is cleaned up, this'll expose the `Cmp == 0` branches clearly in MIR, so that an InstCombine (#105808) can simplify that to just a `BinOp::Eq` and thus fix some of our generated code perf issues. (Tracking that through today's `if a < b { Less } else if a == b { Equal } else { Greater }` would be *much* harder.)
---
r? `@ghost`
But first I should check that perf is ok with this
~~...and my true nemesis, tidy.~~
Adds support for both CFI and KCFI for attaching concrete and abstract
types to functions. KCFI does this through generation of `ReifyShim` on
any function pointer that could go in a vtable, and checking the
`ReifyReason` when emitting the instance. CFI does this by attaching
both the concrete and abstract type to every instance.
TypeID codegen tests are switched to be anchored on the left rather than
the right in order to allow emission of additional type attachments.
Fixes#115953
KCFI needs to be able to tell which kind of `ReifyShim` it is examining
in order to decide whether to use a concrete type (`FnPtr` case) or an
abstract case (`Vtable` case). You can *almost* tell this from context,
but there is one case where you can't - if a trait has a method which is
*not* `#[track_caller]`, with an impl that *is* `#[track_caller]`, both
the vtable and a function pointer created from that method will be
`ReifyShim(def_id)`.
Currently, the reason is optional to ensure no additional unique
`ReifyShim`s are added without KCFI on. However, the case in which an
extra `ReifyShim` is created is sufficiently rare that this may be worth
revisiting to reduce complexity.
Update `ParamEnv` docs
There is now a wealth of information in the dev guide about `ParamEnv` so we should explicitly link to it from the doc comments. I also added a caution against using `ParamEnv` and removed the comment about it being "suitable for type checking" as you should practically never use `ParamEnv::empty` for type checking
r? `@compiler-errors`
Use the `Align` type when parsing alignment attributes
Use the `Align` type in `rustc_attr::parse_alignment`, removing the need to call `Align::from_bytes(...).unwrap()` later in the compilation process.
