Rename macro `SmartPointer` to `CoercePointee`
As per resolution #129104 we will rename the macro to better reflect the technical specification of the feature and clarify the communication.
- `SmartPointer` is renamed to `CoerceReferent`
- `#[pointee]` attribute is renamed to `#[referent]`
- `#![feature(derive_smart_pointer)]` gate is renamed to `#![feature(derive_coerce_referent)]`.
- Any mention of `SmartPointer` in the file names are renamed accordingly.
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@nikomatsakis` `@Darksonn`
Use `Enabled{Lang,Lib}Feature` instead of n-tuples
Instead of passing around e.g. `(gate_name, attr_span, stable_since)` 3-tuples for enabled lang features or `(gate_name, attr_span)` 2-tuples for enabled lib features, use `Enabled{Lang,Lib}Feature` structs with named fields.
Also did some minor code-golfing of involved iterator chains to hopefully make them easier to follow.
Follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132098#issuecomment-2434523431 cc `@RalfJung.`
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.
Stabilize shorter-tail-lifetimes
Close#131445
Tracked by #123739
We found a test case `tests/ui/drop/drop_order.rs` that had not been covered by the change. The test fixture is fixed now with the correct expectation.
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.
terminology: #[feature] *enables* a feature (instead of "declaring" or "activating" it)
Mostly, we currently call a feature that has a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` attribute in the current crate a "declared" feature. I think that is confusing as it does not align with what "declaring" usually means. Furthermore, we *also* refer to `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]` as *declaring* a feature (e.g. in [these diagnostics](f25e5abea2/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl (L297-L301))), which aligns better with what "declaring" usually means. To make things worse, the functions `tcx.features().active(...)` and `tcx.features().declared(...)` both exist and they are doing almost the same thing (testing whether a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` exists) except that `active` would ICE if the feature is not an unstable lang feature. On top of this, the callback when a feature is activated/declared is called `set_enabled`, and many comments also talk about "enabling" a feature.
So really, our terminology is just a mess.
I would suggest we use "declaring a feature" for saying that something is/was guarded by a feature (e.g. `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]`), and "enabling a feature" for `#[feature(name)]`. This PR implements that.
stabilize Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance APIs
Given that [RFC 3559](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3559-rust-has-provenance.html) has been accepted, t-lang has approved the concept of provenance to exist in the language. So I think it's time that we stabilize the strict provenance and exposed provenance APIs, and discuss provenance explicitly in the docs:
```rust
// core::ptr
pub const fn without_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub const fn dangling<T>() -> *const T;
pub const fn without_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
pub const fn dangling_mut<T>() -> *mut T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
impl<T: ?Sized> *const T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> *mut T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> NonNull<T> {
pub fn addr(self) -> NonZero<usize>;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(NonZero<usize>) -> NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
}
```
I also did a pass over the docs to adjust them, because this is no longer an "experiment". The `ptr` docs now discuss the concept of provenance in general, and then they go into the two families of APIs for dealing with provenance: Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance. I removed the discussion of how pointers also have an associated "address space" -- that is not actually tracked in the pointer value, it is tracked in the type, so IMO it just distracts from the core point of provenance. I also adjusted the docs for `with_exposed_provenance` to make it clear that we cannot guarantee much about this function, it's all best-effort.
There are two unstable lints associated with the strict_provenance feature gate; I moved them to a new [strict_provenance_lints](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130351) feature since I didn't want this PR to have an even bigger FCP. ;)
`@rust-lang/opsem` Would be great to get some feedback on the docs here. :)
Nominating for `@rust-lang/libs-api.`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95228.
[FCP comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130350#issuecomment-2395114536)
Autodiff Upstreaming - enzyme frontend
This is an upstream PR for the `autodiff` rustc_builtin_macro that is part of the autodiff feature.
For the full implementation, see: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129175
**Content:**
It contains a new `#[autodiff(<args>)]` rustc_builtin_macro, as well as a `#[rustc_autodiff]` builtin attribute.
The autodiff macro is applied on function `f` and will expand to a second function `df` (name given by user).
It will add a dummy body to `df` to make sure it type-checks. The body will later be replaced by enzyme on llvm-ir level,
we therefore don't really care about the content. Most of the changes (700 from 1.2k) are in `compiler/rustc_builtin_macros/src/autodiff.rs`, which expand the macro. Nothing except expansion is implemented for now.
I have a fallback implementation for relevant functions in case that rustc should be build without autodiff support. The default for now will be off, although we want to flip it later (once everything landed) to on for nightly. For the sake of CI, I have flipped the defaults, I'll revert this before merging.
**Dummy function Body:**
The first line is an `inline_asm` nop to make inlining less likely (I have additional checks to prevent this in the middle end of rustc. If `f` gets inlined too early, we can't pass it to enzyme and thus can't differentiate it.
If `df` gets inlined too early, the call site will just compute this dummy code instead of the derivatives, a correctness issue. The following black_box lines make sure that none of the input arguments is getting optimized away before we replace the body.
**Motivation:**
The user facing autodiff macro can verify the user input. Then I write it as args to the rustc_attribute, so from here on I can know that these values should be sensible. A rustc_attribute also turned out to be quite nice to attach this information to the corresponding function and carry it till the backend.
This is also just an experiment, I expect to adjust the user facing autodiff macro based on user feedback, to improve usability.
As a simple example of what this will do, we can see this expansion:
From:
```
#[autodiff(df, Reverse, Duplicated, Const, Active)]
pub fn f1(x: &[f64], y: f64) -> f64 {
unimplemented!()
}
```
to
```
#[rustc_autodiff]
#[inline(never)]
pub fn f1(x: &[f64], y: f64) -> f64 {
::core::panicking::panic("not implemented")
}
#[rustc_autodiff(Reverse, Duplicated, Const, Active,)]
#[inline(never)]
pub fn df(x: &[f64], dx: &mut [f64], y: f64, dret: f64) -> f64 {
unsafe { asm!("NOP"); };
::core::hint::black_box(f1(x, y));
::core::hint::black_box((dx, dret));
::core::hint::black_box(f1(x, y))
}
```
I will add a few more tests once I figured out why rustc rebuilds every time I touch a test.
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124509
try-job: dist-x86_64-msvc
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).
Implement RFC3695 Allow boolean literals as cfg predicates
This PR implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695: allow boolean literals as cfg predicates, i.e. `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)`.
r? `@nnethercote` *(or anyone with parser knowledge)*
cc `@clubby789`
No longer mark RTN as incomplete
The RFC is accepted and the feature is basically fully implemented. This doesn't mean it's necesarily *ready* for stabiliation; there's probably some diagnostic improvements to be made, and as always, users uncover the most creative bugs.
But marking this feature as incomplete no longer serves any purpose, so let's fix that.
fix rustc_nonnull_optimization_guaranteed docs
As far as I can tell, even back when this was [added](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/60300) it never *enabled* any optimizations. It just indicates that the FFI compat lint should accept those types for NPO.
Begin experimental support for pin reborrowing
This commit adds basic support for reborrowing `Pin` types in argument position. At the moment it only supports reborrowing `Pin<&mut T>` as `Pin<&mut T>` by inserting a call to `Pin::as_mut()`, and only in argument position (not as the receiver in a method call).
This PR makes the following example compile:
```rust
#![feature(pin_ergonomics)]
fn foo(_: Pin<&mut Foo>) {
}
fn bar(mut x: Pin<&mut Foo>) {
foo(x);
foo(x);
}
```
Previously, you would have had to write `bar` as:
```rust
fn bar(mut x: Pin<&mut Foo>) {
foo(x.as_mut());
foo(x);
}
```
Tracking:
- #130494
r? `@compiler-errors`
