Tweak value suggestions in `borrowck` and `hir_analysis`
Unify the output of `suggest_assign_value` and `ty_kind_suggestion`.
Ideally we'd make these a single function, but doing so would likely require modify the crate dependency tree.
Propagate temporary lifetime extension into if and match.
This PR makes this work:
```rust
let a = if true {
..;
&temp() // used to error, but now gets lifetime extended
} else {
..;
&temp() // used to error, but now gets lifetime extended
};
```
and
```rust
let a = match () {
_ => {
..;
&temp() // used to error, but now gets lifetime extended
}
};
```
to make it consistent with:
```rust
let a = {
..;
&temp() // lifetime is extended
};
```
This is one small part of [the temporary lifetimes work](https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/253).
This part is backwards compatible (so doesn't need be edition-gated), because all code affected by this change previously resulted in a hard error.
Unify the output of `suggest_assign_value` and `ty_kind_suggestion`.
Ideally we'd make these a single function, but doing so would likely require modify the crate dependency tree.
rename ptr::from_exposed_addr -> ptr::with_exposed_provenance
As discussed on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/To.20expose.20or.20not.20to.20expose/near/427757066).
The old name, `from_exposed_addr`, makes little sense as it's not the address that is exposed, it's the provenance. (`ptr.expose_addr()` stays unchanged as we haven't found a better option yet. The intended interpretation is "expose the provenance and return the address".)
The new name nicely matches `ptr::without_provenance`.
De-LLVM the unchecked shifts [MCP#693]
This is just one part of the MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/693), but it's the one that IMHO removes the most noise from the standard library code.
Seems net simpler this way, since MIR already supported heterogeneous shifts anyway, and thus it's not more work for backends than before.
r? WaffleLapkin
Add `Ord::cmp` for primitives as a `BinOp` in MIR
Update: most of this OP was written months ago. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118310#issuecomment-2016940014 below for where we got to recently that made it ready for review.
---
There are dozens of reasonable ways to implement `Ord::cmp` for integers using comparison, bit-ops, and branches. Those differences are irrelevant at the rust level, however, so we can make things better by adding `BinOp::Cmp` at the MIR level:
1. Exactly how to implement it is left up to the backends, so LLVM can use whatever pattern its optimizer best recognizes and cranelift can use whichever pattern codegens the fastest.
2. By not inlining those details for every use of `cmp`, we drastically reduce the amount of MIR generated for `derive`d `PartialOrd`, while also making it more amenable to MIR-level optimizations.
Having extremely careful `if` ordering to μoptimize resource usage on broadwell (#63767) is great, but it really feels to me like libcore is the wrong place to put that logic. Similarly, using subtraction [tricks](https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#CopyIntegerSign) (#105840) is arguably even nicer, but depends on the optimizer understanding it (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/73417) to be practical. Or maybe [bitor is better than add](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/representing-in-ir/67369/2?u=scottmcm)? But maybe only on a future version that [has `or disjoint` support](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-add-or-disjoint-flag/75036?u=scottmcm)? And just because one of those forms happens to be good for LLVM, there's no guarantee that it'd be the same form that GCC or Cranelift would rather see -- especially given their very different optimizers. Not to mention that if LLVM gets a spaceship intrinsic -- [which it should](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Suboptimal.20inlining.20in.20std.20function.20.60binary_search.60/near/404250586) -- we'll need at least a rustc intrinsic to be able to call it.
As for simplifying it in Rust, we now regularly inline `{integer}::partial_cmp`, but it's quite a large amount of IR. The best way to see that is with 8811efa88b (diff-d134c32d028fbe2bf835fef2df9aca9d13332dd82284ff21ee7ebf717bfa4765R113) -- I added a new pre-codegen MIR test for a simple 3-tuple struct, and this PR change it from 36 locals and 26 basic blocks down to 24 locals and 8 basic blocks. Even better, as soon as the construct-`Some`-then-match-it-in-same-BB noise is cleaned up, this'll expose the `Cmp == 0` branches clearly in MIR, so that an InstCombine (#105808) can simplify that to just a `BinOp::Eq` and thus fix some of our generated code perf issues. (Tracking that through today's `if a < b { Less } else if a == b { Equal } else { Greater }` would be *much* harder.)
---
r? `@ghost`
But first I should check that perf is ok with this
~~...and my true nemesis, tidy.~~
Use the `Align` type when parsing alignment attributes
Use the `Align` type in `rustc_attr::parse_alignment`, removing the need to call `Align::from_bytes(...).unwrap()` later in the compilation process.
This is just one part of the MCP, but it's the one that IMHO removes the most noise from the standard library code.
Seems net simpler this way, since MIR already supported heterogeneous shifts anyway, and thus it's not more work for backends than before.
Mention Register Size in `#[warn(asm_sub_register)]`
Fixes#121593
Displays the register size information obtained from `suggest_modifier()` and `default_modifier()`.
refactor check_{lang,library}_ub: use a single intrinsic
This enacts the plan I laid out [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282#issuecomment-1996917998): use a single intrinsic, called `ub_checks` (in aniticpation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/725), that just exposes the value of `debug_assertions` (consistently implemented in both codegen and the interpreter). Put the language vs library UB logic into the library.
This makes it easier to do something like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282 in the future: that just slightly alters the semantics of `ub_checks` (making it more approximating when crates built with different flags are mixed), but it no longer affects whether these checks can happen in Miri or compile-time.
The first commit just moves things around; I don't think these macros and functions belong into `intrinsics.rs` as they are not intrinsics.
r? `@saethlin`
Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #120577 (Stabilize slice_split_at_unchecked)
- #122698 (Cancel `cargo update` job if there's no updates)
- #122780 (Rename `hir::Local` into `hir::LetStmt`)
- #122915 (Delay a bug if no RPITITs were found)
- #122916 (docs(sync): normalize dot in fn summaries)
- #122921 (Enable more mir-opt tests in debug builds)
- #122922 (-Zprint-type-sizes: print the types of awaitees and unnamed coroutine locals.)
- #122927 (Change an ICE regression test to use the original reproducer)
- #122930 (add panic location to 'panicked while processing panic')
- #122931 (Fix some typos in the pin.rs)
- #122933 (tag_for_variant follow-ups)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Rename `hir::Local` into `hir::LetStmt`
Follow-up of #122776.
As discussed on [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Improve.20naming.20of.20.60ExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.3F).
I made this change into a separate PR because I'm less sure about this change as is. For example, we have `visit_local` and `LocalSource` items. Is it fine to keep these two as is (I supposed it is but I prefer to ask) or not? Having `Node::Local(LetStmt)` makes things more explicit but is it going too far?
r? ```@oli-obk```
Let codegen decide when to `mem::swap` with immediates
Making `libcore` decide this is silly; the backend has so much better information about when it's a good idea.
Thus this PR introduces a new `typed_swap` intrinsic with a fallback body, and replaces that fallback implementation when swapping immediates or scalar pairs.
r? oli-obk
Replaces #111744, and means we'll never need more libs PRs like #111803 or #107140
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #114009 (compiler: allow transmute of ZST arrays with generics)
- #122195 (Note that the caller chooses a type for type param)
- #122651 (Suggest `_` for missing generic arguments in turbofish)
- #122784 (Add `tag_for_variant` query)
- #122839 (Split out `PredicatePolarity` from `ImplPolarity`)
- #122873 (Merge my contributor emails into one using mailmap)
- #122885 (Adjust better spastorino membership to triagebot's adhoc_groups)
- #122888 (add a couple more tests)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Several (doc) comments were super outdated or didn't provide enough context.
Some doc comments shoved everything in a single paragraph without respecting
the fact that the first paragraph should be a single sentence because rustdoc
treats these as item descriptions / synopses on module pages.
Split an item bounds and an item's super predicates
This is the moral equivalent of #107614, but instead for predicates this applies to **item bounds**. This PR splits out the item bounds (i.e. *all* predicates that are assumed to hold for the alias) from the item *super predicates*, which are the subset of item bounds which share the same self type as the alias.
## Why?
Much like #107614, there are places in the compiler where we *only* care about super-predicates, and considering predicates that possibly don't have anything to do with the alias is problematic. This includes things like closure signature inference (which is at its core searching for `Self: Fn(..)` style bounds), but also lints like `#[must_use]`, error reporting for aliases, computing type outlives predicates.
Even in cases where considering all of the `item_bounds` doesn't lead to bugs, unnecessarily considering irrelevant bounds does lead to a regression (#121121) due to doing extra work in the solver.
## Example 1 - Trait Aliases
This is best explored via an example:
```
type TAIT<T> = impl TraitAlias<T>;
trait TraitAlias<T> = A + B where T: C;
```
The item bounds list for `Tait<T>` will include:
* `Tait<T>: A`
* `Tait<T>: B`
* `T: C`
While `item_super_predicates` query will include just the first two predicates.
Side-note: You may wonder why `T: C` is included in the item bounds for `TAIT`? This is because when we elaborate `TraitAlias<T>`, we will also elaborate all the predicates on the trait.
## Example 2 - Associated Type Bounds
```
type TAIT<T> = impl Iterator<Item: A>;
```
The `item_bounds` list for `TAIT<T>` will include:
* `Tait<T>: Iterator`
* `<Tait<T> as Iterator>::Item: A`
But the `item_super_predicates` will just include the first bound, since that's the only bound that is relevant to the *alias* itself.
## So what
This leads to some diagnostics duplication just like #107614, but none of it will be user-facing. We only see it in the UI test suite because we explicitly disable diagnostic deduplication.
Regarding naming, I went with `super_predicates` kind of arbitrarily; this can easily be changed, but I'd consider better names as long as we don't block this PR in perpetuity.
