Prevent Deduplication of `LongRunningWarn`
Fixes#118612
As mention in the issue, `LongRunningWarn` is meant to be repeated multiple times.
Therefore, this PR stores a unique number in every instance of `LongRunningWarn` so that it's not hashed into the same value and omitted by the deduplication mechanism.
interpret, miri: fix dealing with overflow during slice indexing and allocation
This is mostly to fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130284.
I then realized we're using somewhat sketchy arguments for a similar multiplication in `copy`/`copy_nonoverlapping`/`write_bytes`, so I made them all share the same function that checks exactly the right thing. (The intrinsics would previously fail on allocations larger than `1 << 47` bytes... which are theoretically possible maybe? Anyway it seems conceptually wrong to use any other bound than `isize::MAX` here.)
stabilize `const_extern_fn`
closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64926
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64926
reference PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1596
## Stabilizaton Report
### Summary
Using `const extern "Rust"` and `const extern "C"` was already stabilized (since version 1.62.0, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95346). This PR stabilizes the other calling conventions: it is now possible to write `const unsafe extern "calling-convention" fn` and `const extern "calling-convention" fn` for any supported calling convention:
```rust
const extern "C-unwind" fn foo1(val: u8) -> u8 { val + 1}
const extern "stdcall" fn foo2(val: u8) -> u8 { val + 1}
const unsafe extern "C-unwind" fn bar1(val: bool) -> bool { !val }
const unsafe extern "stdcall" fn bar2(val: bool) -> bool { !val }
```
This can be used to const-ify an `extern fn`, or conversely, to make a `const fn` callable from external code.
r? T-lang
cc `@RalfJung`
const-eval interning: accept interior mutable pointers in final value
…but keep rejecting mutable references
This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121610 by no longer firing the lint when there is a pointer with interior mutability in the final value of the constant. On stable, such pointers can be created with code like:
```rust
pub enum JsValue {
Undefined,
Object(Cell<bool>),
}
impl Drop for JsValue {
fn drop(&mut self) {}
}
// This does *not* get promoted since `JsValue` has a destructor.
// However, the outer scope rule applies, still giving this 'static lifetime.
const UNDEFINED: &JsValue = &JsValue::Undefined;
```
It's not great to accept such values since people *might* think that it is legal to mutate them with unsafe code. (This is related to how "infectious" `UnsafeCell` is, which is a [wide open question](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/236).) However, we [explicitly document](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html) that things created by `const` are immutable. Furthermore, we also accept the following even more questionable code without any lint today:
```rust
let x: &'static Option<Cell<i32>> = &None;
```
This is even more questionable since it does *not* involve a `const`, and yet still puts the data into immutable memory. We could view this as promotion [potentially introducing UB](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/493). However, we've accepted this since ~forever and it's [too late to reject this now](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122789); the pattern is just too useful.
So basically, if you think that `UnsafeCell` should be tracked fully precisely, then you should want the lint we currently emit to be removed, which this PR does. If you think `UnsafeCell` should "infect" surrounding `enum`s, the big problem is really https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/493 which does not trigger the lint -- the cases the lint triggers on are actually the "harmless" ones as there is an explicit surrounding `const` explaining why things end up being immutable.
What all this goes to show is that the hard error added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118324 (later turned into the future-compat lint that I am now suggesting we remove) was based on some wrong assumptions, at least insofar as it concerns shared references. Furthermore, that lint does not help at all for the most problematic case here where the potential UB is completely implicit. (In fact, the lint is actively in the way of [my preferred long-term strategy](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/493#issuecomment-2028674105) for dealing with this UB.) So I think we should go back to square one and remove that error/lint for shared references. For mutable references, it does seem to work as intended, so we can keep it. Here it serves as a safety net in case the static checks that try to contain mutable references to the inside of a const initializer are not working as intended; I therefore made the check ICE to encourage users to tell us if that safety net is triggered.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122153 by removing the lint.
Cc `@rust-lang/opsem` `@rust-lang/lang`
Fix anon const def-creation when macros are involved
Fixes#128016.
Ever since #125915, some `ast::AnonConst`s turn into `hir::ConstArgKind::Path`s,
which don't have associated `DefId`s. To deal with the fact that we don't have
resolution information in `DefCollector`, we decided to implement a process
where if the anon const *appeared* to be trivial (i.e., `N` or `{ N }`), we
would avoid creating a def for it in `DefCollector`. If later, in AST lowering,
we realized it turned out to be a unit struct literal, or we were lowering it
to something that didn't use `hir::ConstArg`, we'd create its def there.
However, let's say we have a macro `m!()` that expands to a reference to a free
constant `FOO`. If we use `m!()` in the body of an anon const (e.g., `Foo<{ m!() }>`),
then in def collection, it appears to be a nontrivial anon const and we create
a def. But the macro expands to something that looks like a trivial const arg,
but is not, so in AST lowering we "fix" the mistake we assumed def collection
made and create a def for it. This causes a duplicate definition ICE.
The long-term fix for this is to delay the creation of defs for all expression-like
nodes until AST lowering (see #128844 for an incomplete attempt at this). This
would avoid issues like this one that are caused by hacky workarounds. However,
doing this uncovers a pre-existing bug with opaque types that is quite involved
to fix (see #129023).
In the meantime, this PR fixes the bug by delaying def creation for anon consts
whose bodies are macro invocations until after we expand the macro and know
what is inside it. This is accomplished by adding information to create the
anon const's def to the data in `Resolver.invocation_parents`.
r? `@BoxyUwU`
...and remove the `const_arg_path` feature gate as a result. It was only
a stopgap measure to fix the regression that the new lowering introduced
(which should now be fixed by this PR).
some const cleanup: remove unnecessary attributes, add const-hack indications
I learned that we use `FIXME(const-hack)` on top of the "const-hack" label. That seems much better since it marks the right place in the code and moves around with the code. So I went through the PRs with that label and added appropriate FIXMEs in the code. IMO this means we can then remove the label -- Cc ``@rust-lang/wg-const-eval.``
I also noticed some const stability attributes that don't do anything useful, and removed them.
r? ``@fee1-dead``
enable const-float-classify test, and test_next_up/down on 32bit x86
The test_next_up/down tests have been disabled on all 32bit x86 targets, which goes too far -- they should definitely work on our (tier 1) i686 target, it is only without SSE that we might run into trouble due to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114479. However, I cannot reproduce that trouble any more -- maybe that got fixed by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123351?
The const-float-classify test relied on const traits "because we can", and got disabled when const traits got removed. That's an unfortunate reduction in test coverage of our float functionality, so let's restore the test in a way that does not rely on const traits.
The const-float tests are actually testing runtime behavior as well, and I don't think that runtime behavior is covered anywhere else. Probably they shouldn't be called "const-float", but we don't have a `tests/ui/float` folder... should I create one and move them there? Are there any other ui tests that should be moved there?
I also removed some FIXME referring to not use x87 for Rust-to-Rust-calls -- that has happened in #123351 so this got fixed indeed. Does that mean we can simplify all that float code again? I am not sure how to test it. Is running the test suite with an i586 target enough?
Cc ```@tgross35``` ```@workingjubilee```
Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #128523 (Add release notes for 1.81.0)
- #129605 (Add missing `needs-llvm-components` directives for run-make tests that need target-specific codegen)
- #129650 (Clean up `library/profiler_builtins/build.rs`)
- #129651 (skip stage 0 target check if `BOOTSTRAP_SKIP_TARGET_SANITY` is set)
- #129684 (Enable Miri to pass pointers through FFI)
- #129762 (Update the `wasm-component-ld` binary dependency)
- #129782 (couple more crash tests)
- #129816 (tidy: say which feature gate has a stability issue mismatch)
- #129818 (make the const-unstable-in-stable error more clear)
- #129824 (Fix code examples buttons not appearing on click on mobile)
- #129826 (library: Fix typo in `core::mem`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
const fn stability checking: also check declared language features
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129656
`@oli-obk` I assume it is just an oversight that this didn't use `features().declared()`? Or is there a deep reason that this must only check `declared_lib_features`?
interpret: do not make const-eval query result depend on tcx.sess
The check against calling functions with missing target features uses `tcx.sess` to determine which target features are available. However, this can differ between different crates in a crate graph, so the same const-eval query can come to different conclusions about whether a constant evaluates successfully or not -- which is bad, we should consistently get the same result everywhere.
make it possible to enable const_precise_live_drops per-function
This makes const_precise_live_drops work with rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable so that we can stabilize individual functions that rely on const_precise_live_drops.
The goal is that we can use that to stabilize some of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67441 without having to stabilize const_precise_live_drops.
Retroactively feature gate `ConstArgKind::Path`
This puts the lowering introduced by #125915 under a feature gate until we fix the regressions introduced by it. Alternative to whole sale reverting the PR since it didn't seem like a very clean revert and I think this is generally a step in the right direction and don't want to get stuck landing and reverting the PR over and over :)
cc #129137 ``@camelid,`` tests taken from there. beta is branching soon so I think it makes sense to not try and rush that fix through since it wont have much time to bake and if it has issues we can't simply revert it on beta.
Fixes#128016
make writes_through_immutable_pointer a hard error
This turns the lint added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118324 into a hard error. This has been reported in cargo's future-compat reports since Rust 1.76 (released in February). Given that const_mut_refs is still unstable, it should be impossible to even hit this error on stable: we did accidentally stabilize some functions that can cause this error, but that got reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117905. Still, let's do a crater run just to be sure.
Given that this should only affect unstable code, I don't think it needs an FCP, but let's Cc ``@rust-lang/lang`` anyway -- any objection to making this unambiguous UB into a hard error during const-eval? This can be viewed as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129195 which is already nominated for discussion.
