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`
- Replace non-standard names like 's, 'p, 'rg, 'ck, 'parent, 'this, and
'me with vanilla 'a. These are cases where the original name isn't
really any more informative than 'a.
- Replace names like 'cx, 'mir, and 'body with vanilla 'a when the lifetime
applies to multiple fields and so the original lifetime name isn't
really accurate.
- Put 'tcx last in lifetime lists, and 'a before 'b.
const checking: properly compute the set of transient locals
For const-checking the MIR of a const/static initializer, we have to know the set of "transient" locals. The reason for this is that creating a mutable (or interior mutable) reference to a transient local is "safe" in the sense that this reference cannot possibly end up in the final value of the const -- even if it is turned into a raw pointer and stored in a union, we will see that pointer during interning and reliably reject it as dangling.
So far, we determined the set of transient locals as "locals that have a `StorageDead` somewhere". But that's not quite right -- if we had MIR like
```rust
StorageLive(_5);
StorageDead(_5);
StorageLive(_5);
// no further storage annotations for _5
```
Then we'd consider `_5` to be "transient", but it is not actually transient.
We do not currently generate such MIR, but I feel uneasy relying on subtle invariants like this. So this PR implements a proper analysis for computing the set of "transient" locals: a local is "transient" if it is guaranteed dead at all `Return` terminators.
Cc `@cjgillot`
Shrink `TyKind::FnPtr`.
By splitting the `FnSig` within `TyKind::FnPtr` into `FnSigTys` and `FnHeader`, which can be packed more efficiently. This reduces the size of the hot `TyKind` type from 32 bytes to 24 bytes on 64-bit platforms. This reduces peak memory usage by a few percent on some benchmarks. It also reduces cache misses and page faults similarly, though this doesn't translate to clear cycles or wall-time improvements on CI.
r? `@compiler-errors`
By splitting the `FnSig` within `TyKind::FnPtr` into `FnSigTys` and
`FnHeader`, which can be packed more efficiently. This reduces the size
of the hot `TyKind` type from 32 bytes to 24 bytes on 64-bit platforms.
This reduces peak memory usage by a few percent on some benchmarks. It
also reduces cache misses and page faults similarly, though this doesn't
translate to clear cycles or wall-time improvements on CI.
