match lowering: Rename `MatchPair` to `MatchPairTree`
In #120904, `MatchPair` became able to store other match pairs as children, forming a tree. That has made the old name confusing, so this patch renames the type to `MatchPairTree`.
This PR also includes a patch renaming the `test` method to `pick_test_for_match_pair`, since it would conflict with the main change.
r? `@Nadrieril`
MIR building: Stop using `unpack!` for `BlockAnd<()>`
This is a subset of #127416, containing only the parts related to `BlockAnd<()>`.
The first patch removes the non-assigning form of the `unpack!` macro, because it is frustratingly inconsistent with the main form. We can replace it with an ordinary method that discards the `()` and returns the block.
The second patch then finds all of the remaining code that was using `unpack!` with `BlockAnd<()>`, and updates it to use that new method instead.
---
Changes since original review of #127416:
- Renamed `fn unpack_block` → `fn into_block`
- Removed `fn unpack_discard`, replacing it with `let _: BlockAnd<()> = ...` (2 occurrences)
- Tweaked `arm_end_blocks` to unpack earlier and build `Vec<BasicBlock>` instead of `Vec<BlockAnd<()>>`
In #120904, `MatchPair` became able to store other match pairs as children,
forming a tree. That has made the old name confusing, so this patch renames the
type to `MatchPairTree`.
match lowering: Use an iterator to find `expand_until`
A small cleanup that I noticed while looking at #127164.
This makes it easier to see that the split point is always the index after the found item, or the whole list if no stopping point was found.
r? `@Nadrieril`
match lowering: Move `MatchPair` tree creation to its own module
This makes it easier to see that `MatchPair::new` has only one non-recursive caller, because the recursive callers are all in this module. No functional changes.
---
I have used `git diff --color-moved` to verify that the moved code is identical to the old code, except for reduced visibility on the helper methods.
This comment has two problems:
- It is very long, making the flow of the enclosing method hard to follow.
- It starts by talking about an `autoref` flag that hasn't existed since #59114.
This PR therefore replaces the long inline comment with a revised doc comment
on `bind_matched_candidate_for_guard`, and some shorter inline comments.
For readers who want more historical context, we also link to the PR that added
the old comment, and the PR that removed the `autoref` flag.
Fix regression in the MIR lowering of or-patterns
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126553 I made a silly indexing mistake and regressed the MIR lowering of or-patterns. This fixes it.
r? `@compiler-errors` because I'd like this to be merged quickly 🙏
Support tail calls in mir via `TerminatorKind::TailCall`
This is one of the interesting bits in tail call implementation — MIR support.
This adds a new `TerminatorKind` which represents a tail call:
```rust
TailCall {
func: Operand<'tcx>,
args: Vec<Operand<'tcx>>,
fn_span: Span,
},
```
*Structurally* this is very similar to a normal `Call` but is missing a few fields:
- `destination` — tail calls don't write to destination, instead they pass caller's destination to the callee (such that eventual `return` will write to the caller of the function that used tail call)
- `target` — similarly to `destination` tail calls pass the caller's return address to the callee, so there is nothing to do
- `unwind` — I _think_ this is applicable too, although it's a bit confusing
- `call_source` — `become` forbids operators and is not created as a lowering of something else; tail calls always come from HIR (at least for now)
It might be helpful to read the interpreter implementation to understand what `TailCall` means exactly, although I've tried documenting it too.
-----
There are a few `FIXME`-questions still left, ideally we'd be able to answer them during review ':)
-----
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@scottmcm` `@DrMeepster` `@JakobDegen`
Re-implement a type-size based limit
r? lcnr
This PR reintroduces the type length limit added in #37789, which was accidentally made practically useless by the caching changes to `Ty::walk` in #72412, which caused the `walk` function to no longer walk over identical elements.
Hitting this length limit is not fatal unless we are in codegen -- so it shouldn't affect passes like the mir inliner which creates potentially very large types (which we observed, for example, when the new trait solver compiles `itertools` in `--release` mode).
This also increases the type length limit from `1048576 == 2 ** 20` to `2 ** 24`, which covers all of the code that can be reached with craterbot-check. Individual crates can increase the length limit further if desired.
Perf regression is mild and I think we should accept it -- reinstating this limit is important for the new trait solver and to make sure we don't accidentally hit more type-size related regressions in the future.
Fixes#125460
The previous boolean used `true` to indicate that storage-live should _not_ be
emitted, so all occurrences of `Yes` and `No` should be the logical opposite of
the previous value.
The new enum `DeclareLetBindings` has three variants:
- `Yes`: Declare `let` bindings as normal, for `if` conditions.
- `No`: Don't declare bindings, for match guards and let-else.
- `LetNotPermitted`: Assert that `let` expressions should not occur.
Tweak `FlatPat::new` to avoid a temporarily-invalid state
It was somewhat confusing that the old constructor would create a `FlatPat` in a (possibly) non-simplified state, and then simplify its contents in-place.
So instead we now create its fields as local variables, perform simplification, and then create the struct afterwards.
This doesn't affect correctness, but is less confusing.
---
I've also included some semi-related comments that I made while trying to navigate this code.
Tweak a confusing comment in `create_match_candidates`
This comment was accurate at the time it was written, but various later changes reshuffled things in ways that caused the existing comment to become confusing.
I've therefore tried to clarify that *these* candidates are 1:1 with match arms, while also warning that that isn't the case in general.
It was somewhat confusing that the old constructor would create a `FlatPat` in
a (possibly) non-simplified state, and then simplify its contents in-place.
So instead we now create its fields as local variables, perform simplification,
and then create the struct afterwards.
This doesn't affect correctness, but is less confusing.
Add `SliceLike` to `rustc_type_ir`, use it in the generic solver code (+ some other changes)
First, we split out `TraitRef::new_from_args` which takes *just* `ty::GenericArgsRef` from `TraitRef::new` which takes `impl IntoIterator<Item: Into<GenericArg>>`. I will explain in a minute why.
Second, we introduce `SliceLike`, which allows us to be generic over `List<T>` and `[T]`. This trait has an `as_slice()` and `into_iter()` method, and some other convenience functions. However, importantly, since types like `I::GenericArgs` now implement `SliceLike` rather than `IntoIter<Item = I::GenericArg>`, we can't use `TraitRef::new` on this directly. That's where `new_from_args` comes in.
Finally, we adjust all the code to use these slice operators. Some things get simpler, some things get a bit more annoying since we need to use `as_slice()` in a few places. 🤷
r? lcnr
Save 2 pointers in `TerminatorKind` (96 → 80 bytes)
These things don't need to be `Vec`s; boxed slices are enough.
The frequent one here is call arguments, but MIR building knows the number of arguments from the THIR, so the collect is always getting the allocation right in the first place, and thus this shouldn't ever add the shrink-in-place overhead.
This section of code depends on `rustc_apfloat` rather than our internal
types, so this is one potential ICE that we should be able to melt now.
This also fixes some missing range and match handling in `rustc_middle`.
These things don't need to be `Vec`s; boxed slices are enough.
The frequent one here is call arguments, but MIR building knows the number of arguments from the THIR, so the collect is always getting the allocation right in the first place, and thus this shouldn't ever add the shrink-in-place overhead.
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125447 (Allow constraining opaque types during subtyping in the trait system)
- #125766 (MCDC Coverage: instrument last boolean RHS operands from condition coverage)
- #125880 (Remove `src/tools/rust-demangler`)
- #126154 (StorageLive: refresh storage (instead of UB) when local is already live)
- #126572 (override user defined channel when using precompiled rustc)
- #126662 (Unconditionally warn on usage of `wasm32-wasi`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
MCDC Coverage: instrument last boolean RHS operands from condition coverage
Fresh PR from #124652
--
This PR ensures that the top-level boolean expressions that are not part of the control flow are correctly instrumented thanks to condition coverage.
See discussion on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124120.
Depends on `@Zalathar` 's condition coverage implementation #125756.
match lowering: expand or-candidates mixed with candidates above
This PR tweaks match lowering of or-patterns. Consider this:
```rust
match (x, y) {
(1, true) => 1,
(2, false) => 2,
(1 | 2, true | false) => 3,
(3 | 4, true | false) => 4,
_ => 5,
}
```
One might hope that this can be compiled to a single `SwitchInt` on `x` followed by some boolean checks. Before this PR, we compile this to 3 `SwitchInt`s on `x`, because an arm that contains more than one or-pattern was compiled on its own. This PR groups branch `3` with the two branches above, getting us down to 2 `SwitchInt`s on `x`.
We can't in general expand or-patterns freely, because this interacts poorly with another optimization we do: or-pattern simplification. When an or-pattern doesn't involve bindings, we branch the success paths of all its alternatives to the same block. The drawback is that in a case like:
```rust
match (1, true) {
(1 | 2, false) => unreachable!(),
(2, _) => unreachable!(),
_ => {}
}
```
if we used a single `SwitchInt`, by the time we test `false` we don't know whether we came from the `1` case or the `2` case, so we don't know where to go if `false` doesn't match.
Hence the limitation: we can process or-pattern alternatives alongside candidates that precede it, but not candidates that follow it. (Unless the or-pattern is the only remaining match pair of its candidate, in which case we can process it alongside whatever).
This PR allows the processing of or-pattern alternatives alongside candidates that precede it. One benefit is that we now process or-patterns in a single place in `mod.rs`.
r? ``@matthewjasper``
Condition coverage extends branch coverage to treat the specific case
of last operands of boolean decisions not involved in control flow.
This is ultimately made for MCDC to be exhaustive on all boolean expressions.
This patch adds a call to `visit_branch_coverage_operation` to track the
top-level operand of the said decisions, and changes
`visit_coverage_standalone_condition` so MCDC branch registration is called
when enabled on these _last RHS_ cases.
Use `Variance` glob imported variants everywhere
Fully commit to using the globbed variance. Could be convinced the other way, and change this PR to not use the globbed variants anywhere, but I'd rather we do one or the other.
r? lcnr
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
coverage: Optionally instrument the RHS of lazy logical operators
(This is an updated version of #124644 and #124402. Fixes #124120.)
When `||` or `&&` is used outside of a branching context (such as the condition of an `if`), the rightmost value does not directly influence any branching decision, so branch coverage instrumentation does not treat it as its own true-or-false branch.
That is a correct and useful interpretation of “branch coverage”, but might be undesirable in some contexts, as described at #124120. This PR therefore adds a new coverage level `-Zcoverage-options=condition` that behaves like branch coverage, but also adds additional branch instrumentation to the right-hand-side of lazy boolean operators.
---
As discussed at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124120#issuecomment-2092394586, this is mainly intended as an intermediate step towards fully-featured MC/DC instrumentation. It's likely that we'll eventually want to remove this coverage level (rather than stabilize it), either because it has been incorporated into MC/DC instrumentation, or because it's getting in the way of future MC/DC work. The main appeal of landing it now is so that work on tracking conditions can proceed concurrently with other MC/DC-related work.
````@rustbot```` label +A-code-coverage
Make `std::env::{set_var, remove_var}` unsafe in edition 2024
Allow calling these functions without `unsafe` blocks in editions up until 2021, but don't trigger the `unused_unsafe` lint for `unsafe` blocks containing these functions.
Fixes#27970.
Fixes#90308.
CC #124866.
coverage: Rename MC/DC `conditions_num` to `num_conditions`
Updated version of #124571, without the other changes that were split out into #125108 and #125700.
This value represents a quantity of conditions, not an ID, so the new spelling is more appropriate.
Some of the code touched by this PR could perhaps use some other changes, but I would prefer to keep this PR as a simple renaming and avoid scope creep.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
Make `body_owned_by` return the `Body` instead of just the `BodyId`
fixes#125677
Almost all `body_owned_by` callers immediately called `body`, too, so just return `Body` directly.
This makes the inline-const query feeding more robust, as all calls to `body_owned_by` will now yield a body for inline consts, too.
I have not yet figured out a good way to make `tcx.hir().body()` return an inline-const body, but that can be done as a follow-up
When a lazy logical operator (`&&` or `||`) occurs outside of an `if`
condition, it normally doesn't have any associated control-flow branch, so we
don't have an existing way to track whether it was true or false.
This patch adds special code to handle this case, by inserting extra MIR blocks
in a diamond shape after evaluating the RHS. This gives us a place to insert
the appropriate marker statements, which can then be given their own counters.
Allow calling these functions without `unsafe` blocks in editions up
until 2021, but don't trigger the `unused_unsafe` lint for `unsafe`
blocks containing these functions.
Fixes#27970.
Fixes#90308.
CC #124866.
coverage: Avoid overflow when the MC/DC condition limit is exceeded
Fix for the test failure seen in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124571#issuecomment-2099620869.
If we perform this subtraction first, it can sometimes overflow to -1 before the addition can bring its value back to 0.
That behaviour seems to be benign, but it nevertheless causes test failures in compiler configurations that check for overflow.
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
If we perform this subtraction and then add 1, the subtraction can sometimes
overflow to -1 before the addition can bring its value back to 0. That
behaviour seems to be benign, but it nevertheless causes test failures in
compiler configurations that check for overflow.
We can avoid the overflow by instead subtracting (N - 1), which is
algebraically equivalent, and more closely matches what the code is actually
trying to do.
Turn remaining non-structural-const-in-pattern lints into hard errors
This completes the implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120362 by turning our remaining future-compat lints into hard errors: indirect_structural_match and pointer_structural_match.
They have been future-compat lints for a while (indirect_structural_match for many years, pointer_structural_match since Rust 1.75 (released Dec 28, 2023)), and have shown up in dependency breakage reports since Rust 1.78 (just released on May 2, 2024). I don't expect a lot of code will still depend on them, but we will of course do a crater run.
A lot of cleanup is now possible in const_to_pat, but that is deferred to a later PR.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70861
Remove more `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing`
Because explicit importing of macros via use items is nicer (more standard and readable) than implicit importing via `#[macro_use]`. Continuing the work from #124511 and #124914.
r? `@jackh726`
Cleanup: Fix up some diagnostics
Several diagnostics contained their error code inside their primary message which is no bueno.
This PR moves them out of the message and turns them into structured error codes.
Also fixes another occurrence of `->` after a selector in a Fluent message which is not correct. I've fixed two other instances of this issue in #104345 (2022) but didn't update all instances as I've noted here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104345#issuecomment-1312705977 (“the future is now!”).
Expand `for_loops_over_fallibles` lint to lint on fallibles behind references.
Extends the scope of the (warn-by-default) lint `for_loops_over_fallibles` from just `for _ in x` where `x: Option<_>/Result<_, _>` to also cover `x: &(mut) Option<_>/Result<_>`
```rs
fn main() {
// Current lints
for _ in Some(42) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// New lints
for _ in &Some(42) {}
for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// Should not lint
for _ in Some(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter_mut() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter_mut() {}
}
```
<details><summary><code>cargo build</code> diff</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/old.out b/new.out
index 84215aa..ca195a7 100644
--- a/old.out
+++ b/new.out
`@@` -1,33 +1,93 `@@`
warning: for loop over an `Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:3:14
|
3 | for _ in Some(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(for_loops_over_fallibles)]` on by default
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
3 | while let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
3 | if let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
warning: for loop over a `Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:4:14
|
4 | for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
4 | while let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
4 | if let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
-warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 2 warnings
- Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.04s
+warning: for loop over a `&Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:7:14
+ |
+7 | for _ in &Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+7 | while let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+7 | if let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:8:14
+ |
+8 | for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+8 | while let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+8 | if let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:9:14
+ |
+9 | for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+9 | while let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+9 | if let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:10:14
+ |
+10 | for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+10 | while let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+10 | if let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 6 warnings
+ Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.02s
```
</details>
-----
Question:
* ~~Currently, the article `an` is used for `&Option`, and `&mut Option` in the lint diagnostic, since that's what `Option` uses. Is this okay or should it be changed? (likewise, `a` is used for `&Result` and `&mut Result`)~~ The article `a` is used for `&Option`, `&mut Option`, `&Result`, `&mut Result` and (as before) `Result`. Only `Option` uses `an` (as before).
`@rustbot` label +A-lint
Remove `#[macro_use] extern crate rustc middle` from numerous crates
Because explicit importing of macros via `use` items is nicer (more standard and readable) than implicit importing via `#[macro_use]`. This PR mops up some cases I didn't get to in #124511.
r? `@saethlin`
Unfortunately, we can't always offer a machine-applicable suggestion when there are subpatterns from macro expansion.
Co-Authored-By: Guillaume Boisseau <Nadrieril@users.noreply.github.com>
`InferCtxt::next_{ty,const}_var*` all take an origin, but the
`param_def_id` is almost always `None`. This commit changes them to just
take a `Span` and build the origin within the method, and adds new
methods for the rare cases where `param_def_id` might not be `None`.
This avoids a lot of tedious origin building.
Specifically:
- next_ty_var{,_id_in_universe,_in_universe}: now take `Span` instead of
`TypeVariableOrigin`
- next_ty_var_with_origin: added
- next_const_var{,_in_universe}: takes Span instead of ConstVariableOrigin
- next_const_var_with_origin: added
- next_region_var, next_region_var_in_universe: these are unchanged,
still take RegionVariableOrigin
The API inconsistency (ty/const vs region) seems worth it for the
large conciseness improvements.
coverage: Branch coverage support for let-else and if-let
This PR adds branch coverage instrumentation for let-else and if-let, including let-chains.
This lifts two of the limitations listed at #124118.
Some hir cleanups
It seemed odd to not put `AnonConst` in the arena, compared with the other types that we did put into an arena. This way we can also give it a `Span` without growing a lot of other HIR data structures because of the extra field.
r? compiler
Use `tcx.types.unit` instead of `Ty::new_unit(tcx)`
I don't think there is any need for the function, given that we can just access the `.types`, similarly to all other primitives?
coverage: Avoid hard-coded values when visiting logical ops
This is a tiny little thing that I noticed during the final review of #123409, and I didn't want to hold up the whole PR just for this.
Instead of separately hard-coding the operation being visited, we can get it from the match arm pattern by using an as-pattern.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
MCDC coverage: support nested decision coverage
#123409 provided the initial MCDC coverage implementation.
As referenced in #124144, it does not currently support "nested" decisions, like the following example :
```rust
fn nested_if_in_condition(a: bool, b: bool, c: bool) {
if a && if b || c { true } else { false } {
say("yes");
} else {
say("no");
}
}
```
Note that there is an if-expression (`if b || c ...`) embedded inside a boolean expression in the decision of an outer if-expression.
This PR proposes a workaround for this cases, by introducing a Decision context stack, and by handing several `temporary condition bitmaps` instead of just one.
When instrumenting boolean expressions, if the current node is a leaf condition (i.e. not a `||`/`&&` logical operator nor a `!` not operator), we insert a new decision context, such that if there are more boolean expressions inside the condition, they are handled as separate expressions.
On the codegen LLVM side, we allocate as many `temp_cond_bitmap`s as necessary to handle the maximum encountered decision depth.
Add decision_depth field to TVBitmapUpdate/CondBitmapUpdate statements
Add decision_depth field to BcbMappingKinds MCDCBranch and MCDCDecision
Add decision_depth field to MCDCBranchSpan and MCDCDecisionSpan
deref patterns: lower deref patterns to MIR
This lowers deref patterns to MIR. This is a bit tricky because this is the first kind of pattern that requires storing a value in a temporary. Thanks to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123324 false edges are no longer a problem.
The thing I'm not confident about is the handling of fake borrows. This PR ignores any fake borrows inside a deref pattern. We are guaranteed to at least fake borrow the place of the first pointer value, which could be enough, but I'm not certain.
