const_mut_refs: allow mutable pointers to statics
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118447
Writing this PR became a bit messy, see [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/146212-t-compiler.2Fconst-eval/topic/Statics.20pointing.20to.20interior.20mutable.20statics) for some of my journey.^^ Turns out there was a long-standing bug in our qualif logic that led to us incorrectly classifying certain places as "no interior mut" when they actually had interior mut. Due to that the `const_refs_to_cell` feature gate was required far less often than it otherwise would, e.g. in [this code](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=9e0c042c451b3d11d64dd6263679a164). Fixing this however would be a massive breaking change all over libcore and likely the wider ecosystem. So I also changed the const-checking logic to just not require the feature gate for the affected cases. While doing so I discovered a bunch of logic that is not explained and that I could not explain. However I think stabilizing some const-eval feature will make most of that logic inconsequential so I just added some FIXMEs and left it at that.
r? `@oli-obk`
This fixes the issue wherein the lint didn't fire for promoteds
in the case of SHL/SHR operators in non-optimized builds
and all arithmetic operators in optimized builds
allow mutable references in const values when they point to no memory
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120450
The second commit is just some drive-by test suite cleanup.
r? `@oli-obk`
Implement intrinsics with fallback bodies
fixes#93145 (though we can port many more intrinsics)
cc #63585
The way this works is that the backend logic for generating custom code for intrinsics has been made fallible. The only failure path is "this intrinsic is unknown". The `Instance` (that was `InstanceDef::Intrinsic`) then gets converted to `InstanceDef::Item`, which represents the fallback body. A regular function call to that body is then codegenned. This is currently implemented for
* codegen_ssa (so llvm and gcc)
* codegen_cranelift
other backends will need to adjust, but they can just keep doing what they were doing if they prefer (though adding new intrinsics to the compiler will then require them to implement them, instead of getting the fallback body).
cc `@scottmcm` `@WaffleLapkin`
### todo
* [ ] miri support
* [x] default intrinsic name to name of function instead of requiring it to be specified in attribute
* [x] make sure that the bodies are always available (must be collected for metadata)
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.
Continue compilation after check_mod_type_wf errors
The ICEs fixed here were probably reachable through const eval gymnastics before, but now they are easily reachable without that, too.
The new errors are often bugfixes, where useful errors were missing, because they were reported after the early abort. In other cases sometimes they are just duplication of already emitted errors, which won't be user-visible due to deduplication.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120860
add another test for promoteds-in-static
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119614 led to validation of promoteds recursing into statics. These statics can point to `static mut` and interior mutable `static` and do other things we don't allow in `const`, but promoteds are validated as `const`, so we get strange errors (saying "in `const`" when there is no const) and surprising validation failures.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120960 fixes that; this here adds another test.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120968
check_consts: fix duplicate errors, make importance consistent
This is stuff I noticed while working on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120932, but it's orthogonal to that PR.
r? ``@oli-obk``
This also now allows promoteds everywhere to point to 'extern static', because why not?
We still check that constants cannot transitively reach 'extern static' through references.
(We allow it through raw pointers.)
static mut: allow mutable reference to arbitrary types, not just slices and arrays
For historical reasons, we allow this:
```rust
static mut ARRAY: &'static mut [isize] = &mut [1];
```
However, we do not allow this:
```rust
static mut INT: &'static mut isize = &mut 1;
```
I think that's terribly inconsistent. I don't care much for `static mut`, but we have to keep it around for backwards compatibility and so we have to keep supporting it properly in the compiler. In recent refactors of how we deal with mutability of data in `static` and `const`, I almost made a fatal mistake since I tested `static mut INT: &'static mut isize = &mut 1` and concluded that we don't allow such `'static` mutable references even inside `static mut`. After all, nobody would expect this to be allowed only for arrays and slices, right?!?? So for the sake of our own sanity, and of whoever else reverse engineers these rules in the future to understand what the Rust compiler accepts or does not accept, I propose that we accept this for all types, not just arrays and slices.
