match lowering: simplify block creation
Match lowering was doing complicated things with block creation. As far as I can tell it was trying to avoid creating unneeded blocks, but of the three places that start out with `otherwise = &mut None`, two of them called `otherwise.unwrap_or_else(|| self.cfg.start_new_block())` anyway. As far as I can tell the only place where this PR makes a difference is in `lower_match_tree`, which did indeed sometimes avoid creating the unreachable final block + FakeRead. Unless this is important I propose we do the naive thing instead.
I have not checked all the graph isomorphisms by hand, but at a glance the test diff looks sensible.
r? `@matthewjasper`
Fold pointer operations in GVN
This PR proposes 2 combinations of cast operations in MIR GVN:
- a chain of `PtrToPtr` or `MutToConstPointer` casts can be folded together into a single `PtrToPtr` cast;
- we attempt to evaluate more ptr ops when there is no provenance.
In particular, this allows to read from static slices.
This is not yet sufficient to see through slice operations that use `PtrComponents` (because that's a union), but still a step forward.
r? `@ghost`
Print kind of coroutine closure
Make sure that we print "async closure" when we have an async closure, rather than calling it generically a ["coroutine-closure"](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120361).
Fixes#120886
r? oli-obk
match lowering: consistently lower bindings deepest-first
Currently when lowering match expressions to MIR, we do a funny little dance with the order of bindings. I attempt to explain it in the third commit: we handle refutable (i.e. needing a test) patterns differently than irrefutable ones. This leads to inconsistencies, as reported in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120210. The reason we need a dance at all is for situations like:
```rust
fn foo1(x: NonCopyStruct) {
let y @ NonCopyStruct { copy_field: z } = x;
// the above should turn into
let z = x.copy_field;
let y = x;
}
```
Here the `y ```````@```````` binding will move out of `x`, so we need to copy the field first.
I believe that the inconsistency came about when we fixed https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69971, and didn't notice that the fix didn't extend to refutable patterns. My guess then is that ordering bindings by "deepest-first, otherwise source order" is a sound choice. This PR implements that (at least I hope, match lowering is hard to follow 🥲).
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120210
r? ```````@oli-obk``````` since you merged the original fix to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69971
cc ```````@matthewjasper```````
Add FileCheck annotations to MIR-opt SROA tests
Part of #116971, adds FileCheck annotations to SROA MIR-opt tests in `tests/mir-opt/sroa` and a few uncategorized files.
r? cjgillot
raw pointer metadata API: data address -> data pointer
A pointer consists of [more than just an address](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3559), so let's not equate "pointer" and "address" in these docs.
Rename `pointer` field on `Pin`
A few days ago, I was helping another user create a self-referential type using `PhantomPinned`. However, I noticed an odd behavior when I tried to access one of the type's fields via `Pin`'s `Deref` impl:
```rust
use std::{marker::PhantomPinned, ptr};
struct Pinned {
data: i32,
pointer: *const i32,
_pin: PhantomPinned,
}
fn main() {
let mut b = Box::pin(Pinned {
data: 42,
pointer: ptr::null(),
_pin: PhantomPinned,
});
{
let pinned = unsafe { b.as_mut().get_unchecked_mut() };
pinned.pointer = &pinned.data;
}
println!("{}", unsafe { *b.pointer });
}
```
```rust
error[E0658]: use of unstable library feature 'unsafe_pin_internals'
--> <source>:19:30
|
19 | println!("{}", unsafe { *b.pointer });
| ^^^^^^^^^
error[E0277]: `Pinned` doesn't implement `std::fmt::Display`
--> <source>:19:20
|
19 | println!("{}", unsafe { *b.pointer });
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ `Pinned` cannot be formatted with the default formatter
|
= help: the trait `std::fmt::Display` is not implemented for `Pinned`
= note: in format strings you may be able to use `{:?}` (or {:#?} for pretty-print) instead
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::format_args_nl` which comes from the expansion of the macro `println` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
Since the user named their field `pointer`, it conflicts with the `pointer` field on `Pin`, which is public but unstable since Rust 1.60.0 with #93176. On versions from 1.33.0 to 1.59.0, where the field on `Pin` is private, this program compiles and prints `42` as expected.
To avoid this confusing behavior, this PR renames `pointer` to `__pointer`, so that it's less likely to conflict with a `pointer` field on the underlying type, as accessed through the `Deref` impl. This is technically a breaking change for anyone who names their field `__pointer` on the inner type; if this is undesirable, it could be renamed to something more longwinded. It's also a nightly breaking change for any external users of `unsafe_pin_internals`.
Use an interpreter in MIR jump threading
This allows to understand assignments of aggregate constants. This case appears more frequently with GVN promoting aggregates to constants.
