Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
raw_eq: using it on bytes with provenance is not UB (outside const-eval)
The current behavior of raw_eq violates provenance monotonicity. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124921 for an explanation of provenance monotonicity. It is violated in raw_eq because comparing bytes without provenance is well-defined, but adding provenance makes the operation UB.
So remove the no-provenance requirement from raw_eq. However, the requirement stays in-place for compile-time invocations of raw_eq, that indeed cannot deal with provenance.
Cc `@rust-lang/opsem`
Add a tidy check that checks whether the fluent slugs only appear once
As ``````@Nilstrieb`````` said in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121828#issuecomment-1972622855:
> Might make sense to have a tidy check that checks whether the fluent slugs only appear once in the source code and lint for that
there's a tidy check already for sorting
We can get the tidy check error:
```
tidy check
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_const_eval/messages.ftl: message `const_eval_invalid_align` is not used
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_lint/messages.ftl: message `lint_trivial_untranslatable_diag` is not used
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_parse/messages.ftl: message `parse_invalid_literal_suffix` is not used
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_infer/messages.ftl: message `infer_need_type_info_in_coroutine` is not used
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl: message `passes_expr_not_allowed_in_context` is not used
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl: message `passes_layout` is not used
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_parse/messages.ftl: message `parse_not_supported` is not used
```
r? ``````@Nilstrieb``````
Add asm goto support to `asm!`
Tracking issue: #119364
This PR implements asm-goto support, using the syntax described in "future possibilities" section of [RFC2873](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2873-inline-asm.html#asm-goto).
Currently I have only implemented the `label` part, not the `fallthrough` part (i.e. fallthrough is implicit). This doesn't reduce the expressive though, since you can use label-break to get arbitrary control flow or simply set a value and rely on jump threading optimisation to get the desired control flow. I can add that later if deemed necessary.
r? ``@Amanieu``
cc ``@ojeda``
Instead we re-use the static's alloc id within the interpreter for its initializer to refer to the `Allocation` that only exists within the interpreter.
