Some float methods are now `const fn` under the `const_float_methods` feature gate.
In order to support `min`, `max`, `abs` and `copysign`, the implementation of some intrinsics had to be moved from Miri to rustc_const_eval.
fix/update teach_note from 'escaping mutable ref/ptr' const-check
The old note was quite confusing since it talked about statics, but the message is also shown for consts. So let's reword to something that is true for both of them.
Don't use Immediate::offset to transmute pointers to integers
This applies the relatively new `assert_matches_abi` check in the `offset` operation on immediates, which makes sure that if offsets are used to alter the layout (which is possible because the field layout is arbitrarily picked by the caller), this is not done in a way that breaks the invariant of the `Immediate` type.
This leads to ICEs in a GVN mir-opt test, so the second commit fixes GVN.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131064.
- fix for divergence
- fix error message
- fix another cranelift test
- fix some cranelift things
- don't set the NORETURN option for naked asm
- fix use of naked_asm! in doc comment
- fix use of naked_asm! in run-make test
- use `span_bug` in unreachable branch
interpret: always enable write_immediate sanity checks
Writing a wrongly-sized scalar somewhere can have quite confusing effects. Let's see how expensive it is to catch this early.
Check vtable projections for validity in miri
Currently, miri does not catch when we transmute `dyn Trait<Assoc = A>` to `dyn Trait<Assoc = B>`. This PR implements such a check, and fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/3905.
To do this, we modify `GlobalAlloc::VTable` to contain the *whole* list of `PolyExistentialPredicate`, and then modify `check_vtable_for_type` to validate the `PolyExistentialProjection`s of the vtable, along with the principal trait that was already being validated.
cc ``@RalfJung``
r? ``@lcnr`` or types
I also tweaked the diagnostics a bit.
---
**Open question:** We don't validate the auto traits. You can transmute `dyn Foo` into `dyn Foo + Send`. Should we check that? We currently have a test that *exercises* this as not being UB:
6c6d210089/src/tools/miri/tests/pass/dyn-upcast.rs (L14-L20)
I'm not actually sure if we ever decided that's actually UB or not 🤔
We could perhaps still check that the underlying type of the object (i.e. the concrete type that was unsized) implements the auto traits, to catch UB like:
```rust
fn main() {
let x: &dyn Trait = &std::ptr::null_mut::<()>();
let _: &(dyn Trait + Send) = std::mem::transmute(x);
//~^ this vtable is not allocated for a type that is `Send`!
}
```
interpret: remove outdated FIXME
The rule about `repr(C)` types with compatible fields got removed from the ABI compat docs before they landed, so this FIXME here is no longer correct. (So this is basically a follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130185, doing some more cleanup around deciding not to guarantee ABI compatibility for structurally compatible `repr(C)` types.)
fix rustc_nonnull_optimization_guaranteed docs
As far as I can tell, even back when this was [added](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/60300) it never *enabled* any optimizations. It just indicates that the FFI compat lint should accept those types for NPO.
Prevent Deduplication of `LongRunningWarn`
Fixes#118612
As mention in the issue, `LongRunningWarn` is meant to be repeated multiple times.
Therefore, this PR stores a unique number in every instance of `LongRunningWarn` so that it's not hashed into the same value and omitted by the deduplication mechanism.
interpret, miri: fix dealing with overflow during slice indexing and allocation
This is mostly to fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130284.
I then realized we're using somewhat sketchy arguments for a similar multiplication in `copy`/`copy_nonoverlapping`/`write_bytes`, so I made them all share the same function that checks exactly the right thing. (The intrinsics would previously fail on allocations larger than `1 << 47` bytes... which are theoretically possible maybe? Anyway it seems conceptually wrong to use any other bound than `isize::MAX` here.)
miri: treat non-memory local variables properly for data race detection
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/3242
Miri has an optimization where some local variables are not represented in memory until something forces them to be stored in memory (most notably, creating a pointer/reference to the local will do that). However, for a subsystem triggering on memory accesses -- such as the data race detector -- this means that the memory access seems to happen only when the local is moved to memory, instead of at the time that it actually happens. This can lead to UB reports in programs that do not actually have UB.
This PR fixes that by adding machine hooks for reads and writes to such efficiently represented local variables. The data race system tracks those very similar to how it would track reads and writes to addressable memory, and when a local is moved to memory, the clocks get overwritten with the information stored for the local.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #129195 (Stabilize `&mut` (and `*mut`) as well as `&Cell` (and `*const Cell`) in const)
- #130118 (move Option::unwrap_unchecked into const_option feature gate)
- #130295 (Fix target-cpu fpu features on Armv8-R.)
- #130371 (Correctly account for niche-optimized tags in rustc_transmute)
- #130381 (library: Compute Rust exception class from its string repr)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
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.
Fix `clippy::useless_conversion`
Self-explanatory. Probably the last clippy change I'll actually put up since this is the only other one I've actually seen in the wild.
Simplify some nested `if` statements
Applies some but not all instances of `clippy::collapsible_if`. Some ended up looking worse afterwards, though, so I left those out. Also applies instances of `clippy::collapsible_else_if`
Review with whitespace disabled please.
miri: fix overflow detection for unsigned pointer offset
This is the Miri part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130229. This is already UB in codegen so we better make Miri detect it; updating the docs may take time if we have to follow some approval process, but let's make Miri match reality ASAP.
r? ``@scottmcm``
Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #128523 (Add release notes for 1.81.0)
- #129605 (Add missing `needs-llvm-components` directives for run-make tests that need target-specific codegen)
- #129650 (Clean up `library/profiler_builtins/build.rs`)
- #129651 (skip stage 0 target check if `BOOTSTRAP_SKIP_TARGET_SANITY` is set)
- #129684 (Enable Miri to pass pointers through FFI)
- #129762 (Update the `wasm-component-ld` binary dependency)
- #129782 (couple more crash tests)
- #129816 (tidy: say which feature gate has a stability issue mismatch)
- #129818 (make the const-unstable-in-stable error more clear)
- #129824 (Fix code examples buttons not appearing on click on mobile)
- #129826 (library: Fix typo in `core::mem`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
make the const-unstable-in-stable error more clear
The default should be to add `rustc_const_unstable`, not `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable`.
Also I discovered our check for missing const stability attributes on stable functions -- but strangely that check only kicks in for "reachable" functions. `check_missing_stability` checks for reachability since all reachable functions must have a stability attribute, but I would say if a function has `#[stable]` it should also have const-stability attributes regardless of reachability.
Enable Miri to pass pointers through FFI
Following https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126787, the purpose of this PR is to now enable Miri to execute native calls that make use of pointers.
> <details>
>
> <summary> Simple example </summary>
>
> ```rust
> extern "C" {
> fn ptr_printer(ptr: *mut i32);
> }
>
> fn main() {
> let ptr = &mut 42 as *mut i32;
> unsafe {
> ptr_printer(ptr);
> }
> }
> ```
> ```c
> void ptr_printer(int *ptr) {
> printf("printing pointer dereference from C: %d\n", *ptr);
> }
> ```
> should now show `printing pointer dereference from C: 42`.
>
> </details>
Note that this PR does not yet implement any logic involved in updating Miri's "analysis" state (byte initialization, provenance) upon such a native call.
r? ``@RalfJung``
const fn stability checking: also check declared language features
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129656
`@oli-obk` I assume it is just an oversight that this didn't use `features().declared()`? Or is there a deep reason that this must only check `declared_lib_features`?
interpret: do not make const-eval query result depend on tcx.sess
The check against calling functions with missing target features uses `tcx.sess` to determine which target features are available. However, this can differ between different crates in a crate graph, so the same const-eval query can come to different conclusions about whether a constant evaluates successfully or not -- which is bad, we should consistently get the same result everywhere.
const-eval: do not make UbChecks behavior depend on current crate's flags
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129552
Let's see if we can get away with just always enabling these checks.
Stop storing a special inner body for the coroutine by-move body for async closures
...and instead, just synthesize an item which is treated mostly normally by the MIR pipeline.
This PR does a few things:
* We synthesize a new `DefId` for the by-move body of a closure, which has its `mir_built` fed with the output of the `ByMoveBody` MIR transformation, and some other relevant queries.
* This has the `DefKind::ByMoveBody`, which we use to distinguish it from "real" bodies (that come from HIR) which need to be borrowck'd. Introduce `TyCtxt::is_synthetic_mir` to skip over `mir_borrowck` which is called by `mir_promoted`; borrowck isn't really possible to make work ATM since it heavily relies being called on a body generated from HIR, and is redundant by the construction of the by-move-body.
* Remove the special `PassManager` hacks for handling the inner `by_move_body` stored within the coroutine's mir body. Instead, this body is fed like a regular MIR body, so it's goes through all of the `tcx.*_mir` stages normally (build -> promoted -> ...etc... -> optimized) ✨.
* Remove the `InstanceKind::ByMoveBody` shim, since now we have a "regular" def id, we can just use `InstanceKind::Item`. This also allows us to remove the corresponding hacks from codegen, such as in `fn_sig_for_fn_abi` ✨.
Notable remarks:
* ~~I know it's kind of weird to be using `DefKind::Closure` here, since it's not a distinct closure but just a new MIR body. I don't believe it really matters, but I could also use a different `DefKind`... maybe one that we could use for synthetic MIR bodies in general?~~ edit: We're doing this now.
make it possible to enable const_precise_live_drops per-function
This makes const_precise_live_drops work with rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable so that we can stabilize individual functions that rely on const_precise_live_drops.
The goal is that we can use that to stabilize some of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67441 without having to stabilize const_precise_live_drops.
miri weak memory emulation: put previous value into initial store buffer
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2164 by doing a read before each atomic write so that we can initialize the store buffer. The read suppresses memory access hooks and UB exceptions, to avoid otherwise influencing the program behavior. If the read fails, we store that as `None` in the store buffer, so that when an atomic read races with the first atomic write to some memory and previously the memory was uninitialized, we can report UB due to reading uninit memory.
``@cbeuw`` this changes a bit the way we initialize the store buffers. Not sure if you still remember all this code, but if you could have a look to make sure this still makes sense, that would be great. :)
r? ``@saethlin``
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`
