```
error[E0004]: non-exhaustive patterns: `i32::MIN..=3_i32` and `5_i32..=i32::MAX` not covered
--> $DIR/intended-binding-pattern-is-const.rs:2:11
|
LL | match 1 {
| ^ patterns `i32::MIN..=3_i32` and `5_i32..=i32::MAX` not covered
LL | x => {}
| - this pattern doesn't introduce a new catch-all binding, but rather pattern matches against the value of constant `x`
|
= note: the matched value is of type `i32`
note: constant `x` defined here
--> $DIR/intended-binding-pattern-is-const.rs:7:5
|
LL | const x: i32 = 4;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: if you meant to introduce a binding, use a different name
|
LL | x_var => {}
| ++++
help: ensure that all possible cases are being handled by adding a match arm with a wildcard pattern, a match arm with multiple or-patterns as shown, or multiple match arms
|
LL | x => {}, i32::MIN..=3_i32 | 5_i32..=i32::MAX => todo!()
| ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
```
After:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | const PAT: u32 = 0;
| -------------- missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
...
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^
| |
| pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
| help: introduce a variable instead: `PAT_var`
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
```
Before:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^
| |
| pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
| missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
| help: introduce a variable instead: `PAT_var`
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
```
cleanup: Remove outdated comment of `thir_body`
When typeck fails, `thir_body` returns `ErrorGuaranteed` rather than empty body.
No other code follows this outdated description except `check_unsafety`, which is also cleaned up in this PR.
Remove unnecessary pub enum glob-imports from `rustc_middle::ty`
We used to have an idiom in the compiler where we'd prefix or suffix all the variants of an enum, for example `BoundRegionKind`, with something like `Br`, and then *glob-import* that enum variant directly.
`@noratrieb` brought this up, and I think that it's easier to read when we just use the normal style `EnumName::Variant`.
This PR is a bit large, but it's just naming.
The only somewhat opinionated change that this PR does is rename `BorrowKind::Imm` to `BorrowKind::Immutable` and same for the other variants. I think these enums are used sparingly enough that the extra length is fine.
r? `@noratrieb` or reassign
compiler: Move `rustc_target::spec::abi::Abi` to `rustc_abi::ExternAbi`
Lift `enum Abi` from its rather odd place in the middle of rustc_target, and make it available again from rustc_abi. You know, the crate where you would expect the enum that describes all the ABIs to be? The platform-neutral ones, at least. This will help further refactoring of how we handle ABIs in the near future[^0].
Rename `Abi` to `ExternAbi` because quite a lot of the compiler overloads the concept of "ABI" enough that the existing name is imprecise and it is often renamed _anyway_. Often this was to avoid conflicts with the *other* type formerly known as `Abi` (now named BackendRepr[^1]), but sometimes it is just for clarity, and this name seems more self-explanatory. It does get reexported, though, using its old name, to reduce the odds of merge-conflicting over the entire tree.
All of `ExternAbi`'s friends come along for the ride, which costs adding some optional dependencies to the rustc_abi crate. However, all of this also allows simply moving three crates entirely off rustc_target:
- rustc_hir_pretty
- rustc_lint_defs
- rustc_mir_build
This odd selection is mostly to demonstrate a secondary motivation: The majority of the front-end of the compiler should be as target-agnostic as possible, and it is easier to assure this if they simply don't depend on the crate that describes targets. Note that I didn't migrate crates that don't benefit from it in this way yet, and I didn't survey every last crate.
[^0]: This is being undertaken as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119183
[^1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132246
Remove region from adjustments
It's not necessary to store this region, because it's only used in THIR and MemCat/ExprUse, both of which already basically only deal with erased regions anyways.
Rename `rustc_abi::Abi` to `BackendRepr`
Remove the confabulation of `rustc_abi::Abi` with what "ABI" actually means by renaming it to `BackendRepr`, and rename `Abi::Aggregate` to `BackendRepr::Memory`. The type never actually represented how things are passed, as that has to have `PassMode` considered, at minimum, but rather it just is how we represented some things to the backend. This conflation arose because LLVM, the primary backend at the time, would lower certain IR forms using certain ABIs. Even that only somewhat was true, as it broke down when one ventured significantly afield of what is described by the System V AMD64 ABI either by using different architectures, ABI-modifying IR annotations, the same architecture **with different ISA extensions enabled**, or other... unexpected delights.
Unfortunately both names are still somewhat of a misnomer right now, as people have written code for years based on this misunderstanding. Still, their original names are even moreso, and for better or worse, this backend code hasn't received as much maintenance as the rest of the compiler, lately. Actually arriving at a correct end-state will simply require us to disentangle a lot of code in order to fix, much of it pointlessly repeated in several places. Thus this is not an "actual fix", just a way to deflect further misunderstandings.
TypingMode: merge intercrate, reveal, and defining_opaque_types
This adds `TypingMode` and uses it in most places. We do not yet remove `Reveal` from `param_env`s. This and other future work as tracked in #132279 and via `FIXME`s.
Fetching the `TypingMode` of the `InferCtxt` asserts that the `TypingMode` agrees with `ParamEnv::reveal` to make sure we don't introduce any subtle bugs here. This will be unnecessary once `ParamEnv::reveal` no longer exists.
As the `TypingMode` is now a part of the query input, I've merged the coherence and non-coherence caches for the new solver. I've also enabled the local `infcx` cache during coherence by clearing the cache when forking it with a different `TypingMode`.
#### `TypingMode::from_param_env`
I am using this even in cases where I know that the `param_env` will always be `Reveal::UserFacing`. This is to make it easier to correctly refactor this code in the future, any time we use `Reveal::UserFacing` in a body while not defining its opaque types is incorrect and should use a `TypingMode` which only reveals opaques defined by that body instead, cc #124598
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Don't lint `irrefutable_let_patterns` on leading patterns if `else if` let-chains
fixes#128661
Is there any preference where the test goes? There looks to be several places it could fit.
The initial naming of "Abi" was an awful mistake, conveying wrong ideas
about how psABIs worked and even more about what the enum meant.
It was only meant to represent the way the value would be described to
a codegen backend as it was lowered to that intermediate representation.
It was never meant to mean anything about the actual psABI handling!
The conflation is because LLVM typically will associate a certain form
with a certain ABI, but even that does not hold when the special cases
that actually exist arise, plus the IR annotations that modify the ABI.
Reframe `rustc_abi::Abi` as the `BackendRepr` of the type, and rename
`BackendRepr::Aggregate` as `BackendRepr::Memory`. Unfortunately, due to
the persistent misunderstandings, this too is now incorrect:
- Scattered ABI-relevant code is entangled with BackendRepr
- We do not always pre-compute a correct BackendRepr that reflects how
we "actually" want this value to be handled, so we leave the backend
interface to also inject various special-cases here
- In some cases `BackendRepr::Memory` is a "real" aggregate, but in
others it is in fact using memory, and in some cases it is a scalar!
Our rustc-to-backend lowering code handles this sort of thing right now.
That will eventually be addressed by lifting duplicated lowering code
to either rustc_codegen_ssa or rustc_target as appropriate.
Taking a raw ref (`&raw (const|mut)`) of a deref of pointer (`*ptr`) is always safe
T-opsem decided in https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1387 that `*ptr` is only unsafe if the place is accessed. This means that taking a raw ref of a deref expr is always safe, since it doesn't constitute a read.
This also relaxes the `DEREF_NULLPTR` lint to stop warning in the case of raw ref of a deref'd nullptr, and updates its docs to reflect that change in the UB specification.
This does not change the behavior of `addr_of!((*ptr).field)`, since field projections still require the projection is in-bounds.
I'm on the fence whether this requires an FCP, since it's something that is guaranteed by the reference you could ostensibly call this a bugfix since we were counting truly safe operations as unsafe. Perhaps someone on opsem has a strong opinion? cc `@rust-lang/opsem`
"innermost", "outermost", "leftmost", and "rightmost" don't need hyphens
These are all standard dictionary words and don't require hyphenation.
-----
Encountered an instance of this in error messages and it bugged me, so I
figured I'd fix it across the entire codebase.
Implement edition 2024 match ergonomics restrictions
This implements the minimalest version of [match ergonomics for edition 2024](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3627-match-ergonomics-2024.html). This minimal version makes it an error to ever reset the default binding mode. The implemented proposal is described precisely [here](https://hackmd.io/zUqs2ISNQ0Wrnxsa9nhD0Q#RFC-3627-nano), where it is called "RFC 3627-nano".
Rules:
- Rule 1C: When the DBM (default binding mode) is not `move` (whether or not behind a reference), writing `mut`, `ref`, or `ref mut` on a binding is an error.
- Rule 2C: Reference patterns can only match against references in the scrutinee when the DBM is `move`.
This minimal version is forward-compatible with the main proposals for match ergonomics 2024: [RFC3627](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3627-match-ergonomics-2024.html) itself, the alternative [rule 4-early variant](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3627-match-ergonomics-2024.html), and [others](https://hackmd.io/zUqs2ISNQ0Wrnxsa9nhD0Q). The idea is to give us more time to iron out a final proposal.
This includes a migration lint that desugars any offending pattern into one that doesn't make use of match ergonomics. Such patterns have identical meaning across editions.
This PR insta-stabilizes the proposed behavior onto edition 2024.
r? `@ghost`
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123076
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
- fix for divergence
- fix error message
- fix another cranelift test
- fix some cranelift things
- don't set the NORETURN option for naked asm
- fix use of naked_asm! in doc comment
- fix use of naked_asm! in run-make test
- use `span_bug` in unreachable branch
Replace calls to `ty::Const::{try_}eval` in mir build/pattern analysis
We normalize consts in writeback: #130645. This means that consts are gonna be as normalized as they're ever gonna get in MIR building and pattern analysis. Therefore we can just use `try_to_target_usize` rather than calling `eval_target_usize`.
Regarding the `.expect` calls, I'm not totally certain whether they're correct given rigid unevaluated consts. But this PR shouldn't make *more* ICEs occur; we may have to squash these ICEs when mGCE comes around, tho 😺
