Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
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.
make writes_through_immutable_pointer a hard error
This turns the lint added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118324 into a hard error. This has been reported in cargo's future-compat reports since Rust 1.76 (released in February). Given that const_mut_refs is still unstable, it should be impossible to even hit this error on stable: we did accidentally stabilize some functions that can cause this error, but that got reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117905. Still, let's do a crater run just to be sure.
Given that this should only affect unstable code, I don't think it needs an FCP, but let's Cc ``@rust-lang/lang`` anyway -- any objection to making this unambiguous UB into a hard error during const-eval? This can be viewed as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129195 which is already nominated for discussion.
miri: fix offset_from behavior on wildcard pointers
offset_from wouldn't behave correctly when the "end" pointer was a wildcard pointer (result of an int2ptr cast) just at the end of the allocation. Fix that by expressing the "same allocation" check in terms of two `check_ptr_access_signed` instead of something specific to offset_from, which is both more canonical and works better with wildcard pointers.
The second commit just improves diagnostics: I wanted the "pointer is dangling (has no provenance)" message to say how many bytes of memory it expected to see (since if it were 0 bytes, this would actually be legal, so it's good to tell the user that it's not 0 bytes). And then I was annoying that the error looks so different for when you deref a dangling pointer vs an out-of-bounds pointer so I made them more similar.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/3767
allow statics pointing to mutable statics
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120450 for good. We can even simplify our checks: no need to specifically go looking for mutable references in const, we can just reject any reference that points to something mutable.
r? `@oli-obk`
Diagnostic renaming
Renaming various diagnostic types from `Diagnostic*` to `Diag*`. Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/722. There are more to do but this is enough for one PR.
r? `@davidtwco`
First, introduce a typedef `DiagnosticArgMap`.
Second, make the `args` field public, and remove the `args` getter and
`replace_args` setter. These were necessary previously because the getter
had a `#[allow(rustc::potential_query_instability)]` attribute, but that
was removed in #120931 when the args were changed from `FxHashMap` to
`FxIndexMap`. (All the other `Diagnostic` fields are public.)
Because it also has a `DiagnosticBuilder` arg, which contains a `dcx`
reference.
Also rename some `builder` variables as `diag`, because that's the usual
name.
