check `FnDef` return type for WF
better version of #106807, fixes#84533 (mostly). It's not perfect given that we still ignore WF requirements involving bound regions but I wasn't able to quickly write an example, so even if theoretically exploitable, it should be far harder to trigger.
This is strictly more restrictive than checking the return type for WF as part of the builtin `FnDef: FnOnce` impl (#106807) and moving to this approach in the future will not break any code.
~~It also agrees with my theoretical view of how this should behave~~
r? types
CFI: Support function pointers for trait methods
Adds support for both CFI and KCFI for function pointers to trait methods by attaching both concrete and abstract types to functions.
KCFI does this through generation of a `ReifyShim` on any function pointer for a method that could go into a vtable, and keeping this separate from `ReifyShim`s that are *intended* for vtable us by setting a `ReifyReason` on them.
CFI does this by setting both the concrete and abstract type on every instance.
This should land after #123024 or a similar PR, as it diverges the implementation of CFI vs KCFI.
r? `@compiler-errors`
instantiate higher ranked goals outside of candidate selection
This PR modifies `evaluate` to more eagerly instantiate higher-ranked goals, preventing the `leak_check` during candidate selection from detecting placeholder errors involving that binder.
For a general background regarding higher-ranked region solving and the leak check, see https://hackmd.io/qd9Wp03cQVy06yOLnro2Kg.
> The first is something called the **leak check**. You can think of it as a "quick and dirty" approximation for the region check, which will come later. The leak check detects some kinds of errors early, essentially deciding between "this set of outlives constraints are guaranteed to result in an error eventually" or "this set of outlives constraints may be solvable".
## The ideal future
We would like to end up with the following idealized design to handle universal binders:
```rust
fn enter_forall<'tcx, T, R>(
forall: Binder<'tcx, T>,
f: impl FnOnce(T) -> R,
) -> R {
let new_universe = infcx.increment_universe_index();
let value = instantiate_binder_with_placeholders_in(new_universe, forall);
let result = f(value);
eagerly_handle_higher_ranked_region_constraints_in(new_universe);
infcx.decrement_universe_index();
assert!(!result.has_placeholders_in_or_above(new_universe));
result
}
```
That is, when universally instantiating a binder, anything using the placeholders has to happen inside of a limited scope (the closure `f`). After this closure has completed, all constraints involving placeholders are known.
We then handle any *external constraints* which name these placeholders. We destructure `TypeOutlives` constraints involving placeholders and eagerly handle any region constraints involving these placeholders. We do not return anything mentioning the placeholders created inside of this function to the caller.
Being able to eagerly handle *all* region constraints involving placeholders will be difficult due to complex `TypeOutlives` constraints, involving inference variables or alias types, and higher ranked implied bounds. The exact issues and possible solutions are out of scope of this FCP.
#### How does the leak check fit into this
The `leak_check` is an underapproximation of `eagerly_handle_higher_ranked_region_constraints_in`. It detects some kinds of errors involving placeholders from `new_universe`, but not all of them.
It only looks at region outlives constraints, ignoring `TypeOutlives`, and checks whether one of the following two conditions are met for **placeholders in or above `new_universe`**, in which case it results in an error:
- `'!p1: '!p2` a placeholder `'!p2` outlives a different placeholder `'!p1`
- `'!p1: '?2` an inference variable `'?2` outlives a placeholder `'!p1` *which it cannot name*
It does not handle all higher ranked region constraints, so we still return constraints involving placeholders from `new_universe` which are then (re)checked by `lexical_region_resolve` or MIR borrowck.
As we check higher ranked constraints in the full regionck anyways, the `leak_check` is not soundness critical. It's current only purpose is to move some higher ranked region errors earlier, enabling it to guide type inference and trait solving. Adding additional uses of the `leak_check` in the future would only strengthen inference and is therefore not breaking.
## Where do we use currently use the leak check
The `leak_check` is currently used in two places:
Coherence does not use a proper regionck, only relying on the `leak_check` called [at the end of the implicit negative overlap check](8b94152af6/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/coherence.rs (L235-L238)). During coherence all parameters are instantiated with inference variables, so the only possible region errors are higher-ranked. We currently also sometimes make guesses when destructuring `TypeOutlives` constraints which can theoretically result in incorrect errors. This could result in overlapping impls.
We also use the `leak_check` [at the end of `fn evaluation_probe`](8b94152af6/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L607-L610)). This function is used during candidate assembly for `Trait` goals. Most notably we use [inside of `evaluate_candidate` during winnowing](0e4243538b/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L491-L502)). Conceptionally, it is as if we compute each candidate in a separate `enter_forall`.
## The current use in `fn evaluation_probe` is undesirable
Because we only instantiate a higher-ranked goal once inside of `fn evaluation_probe`, errors involving placeholders from that binder can impact selection. This results in inconsistent behavior ([playground](
*[playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=dac60ebdd517201788899ffa77364831)*)):
```rust
trait Leak<'a> {}
impl Leak<'_> for Box<u32> {}
impl Leak<'static> for Box<u16> {}
fn impls_leak<T: for<'a> Leak<'a>>() {}
trait IndirectLeak<'a> {}
impl<'a, T: Leak<'a>> IndirectLeak<'a> for T {}
fn impls_indirect_leak<T: for<'a> IndirectLeak<'a>>() {}
fn main() {
// ok
//
// The `Box<u16>` impls fails the leak check,
// meaning that we apply the `Box<u32>` impl.
impls_leak::<Box<_>>();
// error: type annotations needed
//
// While the `Box<u16>` impl would fail the leak check
// we have already instantiated the binder while applying
// the generic `IndirectLeak` impl, so during candidate
// selection of `Leak` we do not detect the placeholder error.
// Evaluation of `Box<_>: Leak<'!a>` is therefore ambiguous,
// resulting in `for<'a> Box<_>: Leak<'a>` also being ambiguous.
impls_indirect_leak::<Box<_>>();
}
```
We generally prefer `where`-bounds over implementations during candidate selection, both for [trait goals](11f32b73e0/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L1863-L1887)) and during [normalization](11f32b73e0/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/project.rs (L184-L198)). However, we currently **do not** use the `leak_check` during candidate assembly in normalizing. This can result in inconsistent behavior:
```rust
trait Trait<'a> {
type Assoc;
}
impl<'a, T> Trait<'a> for T {
type Assoc = usize;
}
fn trait_bound<T: for<'a> Trait<'a>>() {}
fn projection_bound<T: for<'a> Trait<'a, Assoc = usize>>() {}
// A function with a trivial where-bound which is more
// restrictive than the impl.
fn function<T: Trait<'static, Assoc = usize>>() {
// ok
//
// Proving `for<'a> T: Trait<'a>` using the where-bound results
// in a leak check failure, so we use the more general impl,
// causing this to succeed.
trait_bound::<T>();
// error
//
// Proving the `Projection` goal `for<'a> T: Trait<'a, Assoc = usize>`
// does not use the leak check when trying the where-bound, causing us
// to prefer it over the impl, resulting in a placeholder error.
projection_bound::<T>();
// error
//
// Trying to normalize the type `for<'a> fn(<T as Trait<'a>>::Assoc)`
// only gets to `<T as Trait<'a>>::Assoc` once `'a` has been already
// instantiated, causing us to prefer the where-bound over the impl
// resulting in a placeholder error. Even if were were to also use the
// leak check during candidate selection for normalization, this
// case would still not compile.
let _higher_ranked_norm: for<'a> fn(<T as Trait<'a>>::Assoc) = |_| ();
}
```
This is also likely to be more performant. It enables more caching in the new trait solver by simply [recursively calling the canonical query][new solver] after instantiating the higher-ranked goal.
It is also unclear how to add the leak check to normalization in the new solver. To handle https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/1 `Projection` goals are implemented via `AliasRelate`. This again means that we instantiate the binder before ever normalizing any alias. Even if we were to avoid this, we lose the ability to [cache normalization by itself, ignoring the expected `term`](5bd5d214ef/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/solve/normalizes_to/mod.rs (L34-L49)). We cannot replace the `term` with an inference variable before instantiating the binder, as otherwise `for<'a> T: Trait<Assoc<'a> = &'a ()>` breaks. If we only replace the term after instantiating the binder, we cannot easily evaluate the goal in a separate context, as [we'd then lose the information necessary for the leak check](11f32b73e0/compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/canonicalizer.rs (L230-L232)). Adding this information to the canonical input also seems non-trivial.
## Proposed solution
I propose to instantiate the binder outside of candidate assembly, causing placeholders from higher-ranked goals to get ignored while selecting their candidate. This mostly[^1] matches the [current behavior of the new solver][new solver]. The impact of this change is therefore as follows:
```rust
trait Leak<'a> {}
impl Leak<'_> for Box<u32> {}
impl Leak<'static> for Box<u16> {}
fn impls_leak<T: for<'a> Leak<'a>>() {}
trait IndirectLeak<'a> {}
impl<'a, T: Leak<'a>> IndirectLeak<'a> for T {}
fn impls_indirect_leak<T: for<'a> IndirectLeak<'a>>() {}
fn guide_selection() {
// ok -> ambiguous
impls_leak::<Box<_>>();
// ambiguous
impls_indirect_leak::<Box<_>>();
}
trait Trait<'a> {
type Assoc;
}
impl<'a, T> Trait<'a> for T {
type Assoc = usize;
}
fn trait_bound<T: for<'a> Trait<'a>>() {}
fn projection_bound<T: for<'a> Trait<'a, Assoc = usize>>() {}
// A function which a trivial where-bound which is more
// restrictive than the impl.
fn function<T: Trait<'static, Assoc = usize>>() {
// ok -> error
trait_bound::<T>();
// error
projection_bound::<T>();
// error
let _higher_ranked_norm: for<'a> fn(<T as Trait<'a>>::Assoc) = |_| ();
}
```
This does not change the behavior if candidates have higher ranked nested goals, as in this case the `leak_check` causes the nested goal to result in an error ([playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=a74c25300b23db9022226de99d8a2fa6)):
```rust
trait LeakCheckFailure<'a> {}
impl LeakCheckFailure<'static> for () {}
trait Trait<T> {}
impl Trait<u32> for () where for<'a> (): LeakCheckFailure<'a> {}
impl Trait<u16> for () {}
fn impls_trait<T: Trait<U>, U>() {}
fn main() {
// ok
//
// It does not matter whether candidate assembly
// considers the placeholders from higher-ranked goal.
//
// Either `for<'a> (): LeakCheckFailure<'a>` has no
// applicable candidate or it has a single applicable candidate
// when then later results in an error. This allows us to
// infer `U` to `u16`.
impls_trait::<(), _>()
}
```
## Impact on existing crates
This is a **breaking change**. [A crater run](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119820#issuecomment-1926862174) found 17 regressed crates with 7 root causes.
For a full analysis of all affected crates, see https://gist.github.com/lcnr/7c1c652f30567048ea240554a36ed95c.
---
I believe this breakage to be acceptable and would merge this change. I am confident that the new position of the leak check matches our idealized future and cannot envision any other consistent alternative. Where possible, I intend to open PRs fixing/avoiding the regressions before landing this PR.
I originally intended to remove the `coherence_leak_check` lint in the same PR. However, while I am confident in the *position* of the leak check, deciding on its exact behavior is left as future work, cc #112999. This PR therefore only moves the leak check while keeping the lint when relying on it in coherence.
[new solver]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/solve/eval_ctxt/mod.rs#L479-L484
[^1]: the new solver has a separate cause of inconsistent behavior rn https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/53#issuecomment-1914310171
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Assert that args are actually compatible with their generics, rather than just their count
Right now we just check that the number of args is right, rather than actually checking the kinds. Uplift a helper fn that I wrote from trait selection to do just that. Found a couple bugs along the way.
r? `@lcnr` or `@fmease` (or anyone really lol)
pattern analysis: fix union handling
Little known fact: rust supports union patterns. Exhaustiveness handles them soundly but reports nonsensical missing patterns. This PR fixes the reported patterns and documents what we're doing.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Rename `expose_addr` to `expose_provenance`
`expose_addr` is a bad name, an address is just a number and cannot be exposed. The operation is actually about the provenance of the pointer.
This PR thus changes the name of the method to `expose_provenance` without changing its return type. There is sufficient precedence for returning a useful value from an operation that does something else without the name indicating such, e.g. [`Option::insert`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/option/enum.Option.html#method.insert) and [`MaybeUninit::write`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/mem/union.MaybeUninit.html#method.write).
Returning the address is merely convenient, not a fundamental part of the operation. This is implied by the fact that integers do not have provenance since
```rust
let addr = ptr.addr();
ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
must behave exactly like
```rust
let addr = ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
as the result of `ptr.expose_provenance()` and `ptr.addr()` is the same integer. Therefore, this PR removes the `#[must_use]` annotation on the function and updates the documentation to reflect the important part.
~~An alternative name would be `expose_provenance`. I'm not at all opposed to that, but it makes a stronger implication than we might want that the provenance of the pointer returned by `ptr::with_exposed_provenance`[^1] is the same as that what was exposed, which is not yet specified as such IIUC. IMHO `expose` does not make that connection.~~
A previous version of this PR suggested `expose` as name, libs-api [decided on](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122964#issuecomment-2033194319) `expose_provenance` to keep the symmetry with `with_exposed_provenance`.
CC `@RalfJung`
r? libs-api
[^1]: I'm using the new name for `from_exposed_addr` suggested by #122935 here.
Better reporting on generic argument mismatchs
This allows better reporting as per issue #116615 .
If you have a function:
```
fn foo(a: T, b: T) {}
```
and call it like so:
```
foo(1, 2.)
```
it'll give improved error reported similar to the following:
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> generic-mismatch-reporting-issue-116615.rs:6:12
|
6 | foo(1, 2.);
| --- - ^^ expected integer, found floating-point number
| | |
| | expected argument `b` to be an integer because that argument needs to match the type of this parameter
| arguments to this function are incorrect
|
note: function defined here
--> generic-mismatch-reporting-issue-116615.rs:1:4
|
1 | fn foo<T>(a: T, b: T) {}
| ^^^ - ---- ----
| | | |
| | | this parameter needs to match the integer type of `a`
| | `b` needs to match the type of this parameter
| `a` and `b` all reference this parameter T
```
Open question, do we need to worry about error message translation into other languages? Not sure what the status of that is in Rust.
NB: Needs some checking over and some tests have altered that need sanity checking, but overall this is starting to get somewhere now. Will take out of draft PR status when this has been done, raising now to allow feedback at this stage, probably 90% ready.
Reproduce the bug from <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123282>
that indicates this feature gate hits edition-dependent resolution paths.
Resolution changed in edition 2018, so test that as well.
Remove MIR unsafe check
Now that THIR unsafeck is enabled by default in stable I think we can remove MIR unsafeck entirely. This PR also removes safety information from MIR.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #122411 ( Provide cabi_realloc on wasm32-wasip2 by default )
- #123349 (Fix capture analysis for by-move closure bodies)
- #123359 (Link against libc++abi and libunwind as well when building LLVM wrappers on AIX)
- #123388 (use a consistent style for links)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Fix capture analysis for by-move closure bodies
The check we were doing to figure out if a coroutine was borrowing from its parent coroutine-closure was flat-out wrong -- a misunderstanding of mine of the way that `tcx.closure_captures` represents its captures.
Fixes#123251 (the miri/ui test I added should more than cover that issue)
r? `@oli-obk` -- I recognize that this PR may be underdocumented, so please ask me what I should explain further.
Rename `UninhabitedEnumBranching` to `UnreachableEnumBranching`
Per [#120268](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120268#discussion_r1517492060), I rename `UninhabitedEnumBranching` to `UnreachableEnumBranching` .
I solved some nits to add some comments.
I adjusted the workaround restrictions. This should be useful for `a <= b` and `if let Some/Ok(v)`. For enum with few variants, `early-tailduplication` should not cause compile time overhead.
r? RalfJung
Add `Context::ext`
This change enables `Context` to carry arbitrary extension data via a single `&mut dyn Any` field.
```rust
#![feature(context_ext)]
impl Context {
fn ext(&mut self) -> &mut dyn Any;
}
impl ContextBuilder {
fn ext(self, data: &'a mut dyn Any) -> Self;
fn from(cx: &'a mut Context<'_>) -> Self;
fn waker(self, waker: &'a Waker) -> Self;
}
```
Basic usage:
```rust
struct MyExtensionData {
executor_name: String,
}
let mut ext = MyExtensionData {
executor_name: "foo".to_string(),
};
let mut cx = ContextBuilder::from_waker(&waker).ext(&mut ext).build();
if let Some(ext) = cx.ext().downcast_mut::<MyExtensionData>() {
println!("{}", ext.executor_name);
}
```
Currently, `Context` only carries a `Waker`, but there is interest in having it carry other kinds of data. Examples include [LocalWaker](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118959), [a reactor interface](https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/347), and [multiple arbitrary values by type](https://docs.rs/context-rs/latest/context_rs/). There is also a general practice in the ecosystem of sharing data between executors and futures via thread-locals or globals that would arguably be better shared via `Context`, if it were possible.
The `ext` field would provide a low friction (to stabilization) solution to enable experimentation. It would enable experimenting with what kinds of data we want to carry as well as with what data structures we may want to use to carry such data.
Dedicated fields for specific kinds of data could still be added directly on `Context` when we have sufficient experience or understanding about the problem they are solving, such as with `LocalWaker`. The `ext` field would be for data for which we don't have such experience or understanding, and that could be graduated to dedicated fields once proven.
Both the provider and consumer of the extension data must be aware of the concrete type behind the `Any`. This means it is not possible for the field to carry an abstract interface. However, the field can carry a concrete type which in turn carries an interface. There are different ways one can imagine an interface-carrying concrete type to work, hence the benefit of being able to experiment with such data structures.
## Passing interfaces
Interfaces can be placed in a concrete type, such as a struct, and then that type can be casted to `Any`. However, one gotcha is `Any` cannot contain non-static references. This means one cannot simply do:
```rust
struct Extensions<'a> {
interface1: &'a mut dyn Trait1,
interface2: &'a mut dyn Trait2,
}
let mut ext = Extensions {
interface1: &mut impl1,
interface2: &mut impl2,
};
let ext: &mut dyn Any = &mut ext;
```
To work around this without boxing, unsafe code can be used to create a safe projection using accessors. For example:
```rust
pub struct Extensions {
interface1: *mut dyn Trait1,
interface2: *mut dyn Trait2,
}
impl Extensions {
pub fn new<'a>(
interface1: &'a mut (dyn Trait1 + 'static),
interface2: &'a mut (dyn Trait2 + 'static),
scratch: &'a mut MaybeUninit<Self>,
) -> &'a mut Self {
scratch.write(Self {
interface1,
interface2,
})
}
pub fn interface1(&mut self) -> &mut dyn Trait1 {
unsafe { self.interface1.as_mut().unwrap() }
}
pub fn interface2(&mut self) -> &mut dyn Trait2 {
unsafe { self.interface2.as_mut().unwrap() }
}
}
let mut scratch = MaybeUninit::uninit();
let ext: &mut Extensions = Extensions::new(&mut impl1, &mut impl2, &mut scratch);
// ext can now be casted to `&mut dyn Any` and back, and used safely
let ext: &mut dyn Any = ext;
```
## Context inheritance
Sometimes when futures poll other futures they want to provide their own `Waker` which requires creating their own `Context`. Unfortunately, polling sub-futures with a fresh `Context` means any properties on the original `Context` won't get propagated along to the sub-futures. To help with this, some additional methods are added to `ContextBuilder`.
Here's how to derive a new `Context` from another, overriding only the `Waker`:
```rust
let mut cx = ContextBuilder::from(parent_cx).waker(&new_waker).build();
```
Avoid expanding to unstable internal method
Fixes#123156
Rather than expanding to `std::rt::begin_panic`, the expansion is now to `unreachable!()`. The resulting behavior is identical. A test that previously triggered the same error as #123156 has been added to ensure it does not regress.
r? compiler
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`.
Make inductive cycles always ambiguous
This makes inductive cycles always result in ambiguity rather than be treated like a stack-dependent error.
This has some interactions with specialization, and so breaks a few UI tests that I don't agree should've ever worked in the first place, and also breaks a handful of crates in a way that I don't believe is a problem.
On the bright side, it puts us in a better spot when it comes to eventually enabling coinduction everywhere.
## Results
This was cratered in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116494#issuecomment-2008657494, which boils down to two regressions:
* `lu_packets` - This code should have never compiled in the first place. More below.
* **ALL** other regressions are due to `commit_verify@0.11.0-beta.1` (edit: and `commit_verify@0.10.x`) - This actually seems to be fixed in version `0.11.0-beta.5`, which is the *most* up to date version, but it's still prerelease on crates.io so I don't think cargo ends up picking `beta.5` when building dependent crates.
### `lu_packets`
Firstly, this crate uses specialization, so I think it's automatically worth breaking. However, I've minimized [the regression](https://crater-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/pr-116494-3/try%23d614ed876e31a5f3ad1d0fbf848fcdab3a29d1d8/gh/lcdr.lu_packets/log.txt) to:
```rust
// Upstream crate
pub trait Serialize {}
impl Serialize for &() {}
impl<S> Serialize for &[S] where for<'a> &'a S: Serialize {}
// ----------------------------------------------------------------------- //
// Downstream crate
#![feature(specialization)]
#![allow(incomplete_features, unused)]
use upstream::Serialize;
trait Replica {
fn serialize();
}
impl<T> Replica for T {
default fn serialize() {}
}
impl<T> Replica for Option<T>
where
for<'a> &'a T: Serialize,
{
fn serialize() {}
}
```
Specifically this fails when computing the specialization graph for the `downstream` crate.
The code ends up cycling on `&[?0]: Serialize` when we equate `&?0 = &[?1]` during impl matching, which ends up needing to prove `&[?1]: Serialize`, which since cycles are treated like ambiguity, ends up in a **fatal overflow**. For some reason this requires two crates, squashing them into one crate doesn't work.
Side-note: This code is subtly order dependent. When minimizing, I ended up having the code start failing on `nightly` very easily after removing and reordering impls. This seems to me all the more reason to remove this behavior altogether.
## Side-note: Item Bounds (edit: this was fixed independently in #121123)
Due to the changes in #120584 where we now consider an alias's item bounds *and* all the item bounds of the alias's nested self type aliases, I've had to add e6b64c6194 which is a hack to make sure we're not eagerly normalizing bounds that have nothing to do with the predicate we're trying to solve, and which result in.
This is fixed in a more principled way in #121123.
---
r? lcnr for an initial review
rustdoc: synthetic auto trait impls: accept unresolved region vars for now
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123348#issuecomment-2032494255:
> Right, [in #123340] I've intentionally changed a `vid_map.get(vid).unwrap_or(r)` to a `vid_map[vid]` making rustdoc panic if `rustc::AutoTraitFinder` returns a region inference variable that cannot be resolved because that is really fishy. I can change it back with a `FIXME: investigate` […]. [O]nce I [fully] understand [the arcane] `rustc::AutoTraitFinder` [I] can fix the underlying issue if there's one.
>
> `rustc::AutoTraitFinder` can also return placeholder regions `RePlaceholder` which doesn't seem right either and which makes rustdoc ICE, too (we have a GitHub issue for that already[, namely #120606]).
Fixes#123370.
Fixes#112242.
r? ``@GuillaumeGomez``
CFI: Support non-general coroutines
Previously, we assumed all `ty::Coroutine` were general coroutines and attempted to generalize them through the `Coroutine` trait. Select appropriate traits for each kind of coroutine.
I have this marked as a draft because it currently only fixes async coroutines, and I think it make sense to try to fix gen/async gen coroutines before this is merged.
If the issue [mentioned](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123106#issuecomment-2030794213) in the original PR is actually affecting someone, we can land this as is to remedy it.
Check that nested statics in thread locals are duplicated per thread.
follow-up to #123310
cc ``@compiler-errors`` ``@RalfJung``
fwiw: I have no idea how thread local statics make that work under LLVM, and miri fails on this example, which I would have expected to be the correct behaviour.
Since the `#[thread_local]` attribute is just an internal implementation detail, I'm just going to start hard erroring on nested mutable statics in thread locals.
Make sure to insert `Sized` bound first into clauses list
#120323 made it so that we don't insert an implicit `Sized` bound whenever we see an *explicit* `Sized` bound. However, since the code that inserts implicit sized bounds puts the bound as the *first* in the list, that means that it had the **side-effect** of possibly meaning we check `Sized` *after* checking other trait bounds.
If those trait bounds result in ambiguity or overflow or something, it may change how we winnow candidates. (**edit: SEE** #123303) This is likely the cause for the regression in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123279#issuecomment-2028899598, since the impl...
```rust
impl<T: Job + Sized> AsJob for T { // <----- changing this to `Sized + Job` or just `Job` (which turns into `Sized + Job`) will FIX the issue.
}
```
...looks incredibly suspicious.
Fixes [after beta-backport] #123279.
Alternative is to revert #120323. I don't have a strong opinion about this, but think it may be nice to keep the diagnostic changes around.
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.~~
Adds support for both CFI and KCFI for attaching concrete and abstract
types to functions. KCFI does this through generation of `ReifyShim` on
any function pointer that could go in a vtable, and checking the
`ReifyReason` when emitting the instance. CFI does this by attaching
both the concrete and abstract type to every instance.
TypeID codegen tests are switched to be anchored on the left rather than
the right in order to allow emission of additional type attachments.
Fixes#115953
Previously, we assumed all `ty::Coroutine` were general coroutines and
attempted to generalize them through the `Coroutine` trait. Select
appropriate traits for each kind of coroutine.
