interpret: move nullary-op evaluation into operator.rs
We call it an operator, so we might as well treat it like one. :)
Also use more consistent naming for the "evaluate intrinsic" functions. "emulate" is really the wrong term, this *is* a genuine implementation of the intrinsic semantics after all.
Use `ParamEnv::reveal_all` in CFI
I left a huge comment for why this ICEs in the test I committed.
`typeid_for_instance` should only be called on monomorphic instances during codegen, and we should just be using `ParamEnv::reveal_all()` rather than the param-env of the instance itself. I added an assertion to ensure that we only do this for fully substituted instances (this may break with polymorphization, but I kinda don't care lol).
Fixes#114160
cc `@rcvalle`
Enforce supertrait outlives obligations hold when confirming impl
**TL;DR:** We elaborate super-predicates and apply any outlives obligations when proving an impl holds to fix a mismatch between implied bounds.
Bugs in implied bounds (and implied well-formedness) occur whenever there is a mismatch between the assumptions that some code can assume to hold, and the obligations that a caller/user of that code must prove. If the former is stronger than the latter, then unsoundness occurs.
Take a look at the example unsoundness:
```rust
use std::fmt::Display;
trait Static: 'static {}
impl<T> Static for &'static T {}
fn foo<S: Display>(x: S) -> Box<dyn Display>
where
&'static S: Static,
{
Box::new(x)
}
fn main() {
let s = foo(&String::from("blah blah blah"));
println!("{}", s);
}
```
This specific example occurs because we elaborate obligations in `fn foo`:
* `&'static S: Static`
* `&'static S: 'static` <- super predicate
* `S: 'static` <- elaborating outlives bounds
However, when calling `foo`, we only need to prove the direct set of where clauses. So at the call site for some substitution `S = &'not_static str`, that means only proving `&'static &'not_static str: Static`. To prove this, we apply the impl, which itself holds trivially since it has no where clauses.
This is the mismatch -- `foo` is allowed to assume that `S: 'static` via elaborating supertraits, but callers of `foo` never need to prove that `S: 'static`.
There are several approaches to fixing this, all of which have problems due to current limitations in our type system:
1. proving the elaborated set of predicates always - This leads to issues since we don't have coinductive trait semantics, so we easily hit new cycles.
* This would fix our issue, since callers of `foo` would have to both prove `&'static &'not_static str: Static` and its elaborated bounds, which would surface the problematic `'not_static: 'static` outlives obligation.
* However, proving supertraits when proving impls leads to inductive cycles which can't be fixed until we get coinductive trait semantics.
2. Proving that an impl header is WF when applying that impl:
* This would fix our issue, since when we try to prove `&'static &'not_static str: Static`, we'd need to prove `WF(&'static &'not_static str)`, which would surface the problematic `'not_static: 'static` outlives obligation.
* However, this leads to issues since we don't have higher-ranked implied bounds. This breaks things when trying to apply impls to higher-ranked trait goals.
To get around these limitations, we apply a subset of (1.), which is to elaborate the supertrait obligations of the impl but filter only the (region/type) outlives out of that set, since those can never participate in an inductive cycle. This is likely not sufficient to fix a pathological example of this issue, but it does clearly fill in a major gap that we're currently overlooking.
This can also result in 'unintended' errors due to missing implied-bounds on binders. We did not encounter this in the crater run and don't expect people to rely on this code in practice:
```rust
trait Outlives<'b>: 'b {}
impl<'b, T> Outlives<'b> for &'b T {}
fn foo<'b>()
where
// This bound will break due to this PR as we end up proving
// `&'b &'!a (): 'b` without the implied `'!a: 'b`
// bound.
for<'a> &'b &'a (): Outlives<'b>,
{}
```
Fixes#98117
---
Crater: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124336#issuecomment-2209165320
Triaged: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124336#issuecomment-2236321325
All of the fallout is due to generic const exprs, and can be ignored.
Migrate `reproducible-build-2` and `stable-symbol-names` `run-make` tests to rmake
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
Needs try-jobs.
try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: armhf-gnu
try-job: test-various
try-job: aarch64-apple
try-job: i686-msvc
try-job: x86_64-mingw
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #128026 (std:🧵 available_parallelism implementation for vxWorks proposal.)
- #128471 (rustdoc: Fix handling of `Self` type in search index and refactor its representation)
- #128607 (Use `object` in `run-make/symbols-visibility`)
- #128609 (Remove unnecessary constants from flt2dec dragon)
- #128611 (run-make: Remove cygpath)
- #128619 (Correct the const stabilization of `<[T]>::last_chunk`)
- #128630 (docs(resolve): more explain about `target`)
- #128660 (tests: more crashes)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Use `object` in `run-make/symbols-visibility`
This is another case where we can simply use a rust library instead of wrangling nm.
try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: i686-msvc
try-job: test-various
Do not fire unhandled attribute assertion on multi-segment `AttributeType::Normal` attributes with builtin attribute as first segment
### The Problem
In #128581 I introduced an assertion to check that all builtin attributes are actually checked via
`CheckAttrVisitor` and aren't accidentally usable on completely unrelated HIR nodes.
Unfortunately, the assertion had correctness problems as revealed in #128622.
The match on attribute path segments looked like
```rs,ignore
// Normal handler
[sym::should_panic] => /* check is implemented */
// Fallback handler
[name, ..] => match BUILTIN_ATTRIBUTE_MAP.get(name) {
// checked below
Some(BuiltinAttribute { type_: AttributeType::CrateLevel, .. }) => {}
Some(_) => {
if !name.as_str().starts_with("rustc_") {
span_bug!(
attr.span,
"builtin attribute {name:?} not handled by `CheckAttrVisitor`"
)
}
}
None => (),
}
```
However, it failed to account for edge cases such as an attribute whose:
1. path segments *starts* with a segment matching the name of a builtin attribute such as `should_panic`, and
2. the first segment's symbol does not start with `rustc_`, and
3. the matched builtin attribute is also of `AttributeType::Normal` attribute type upon registration with the builtin attribute map.
These conditions when all satisfied cause the span bug to be issued for e.g.
`#[should_panic::skip]` because the `[sym::should_panic]` arm is not matched (since it's
`[sym::should_panic, sym::skip]`).
### Proposed Solution
This PR tries to remedy that by adjusting all normal/specific handlers to not match exactly on a single segment, but instead match a prefix segment.
i.e.
```rs,ignore
// Normal handler, notice the `, ..` rest pattern
[sym::should_panic, ..] => /* check is implemented */
// Fallback handler
[name, ..] => match BUILTIN_ATTRIBUTE_MAP.get(name) {
// checked below
Some(BuiltinAttribute { type_: AttributeType::CrateLevel, .. }) => {}
Some(_) => {
if !name.as_str().starts_with("rustc_") {
span_bug!(
attr.span,
"builtin attribute {name:?} not handled by `CheckAttrVisitor`"
)
}
}
None => (),
}
```
### Review Remarks
This PR contains 2 commits:
1. The first commit adds a regression test. This will ICE without the `CheckAttrVisitor` changes.
2. The second commit adjusts `CheckAttrVisitor` assertion logic. Once this commit is applied, the test should no longer ICE and produce the expected bless stderr.
Fixes#128622.
r? ``@nnethercote`` (since you reviewed #128581)
turn `invalid_type_param_default` into a `FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps`
`````@rust-lang/types````` I assume the plan is still to disallow this? It has been a future-compat lint for a long time, seems ripe to go for hard error.
However, turns out that outright removing it right now would lead to [tons of crater regressions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127655#issuecomment-2228285460), so for now this PR just makes this future-compat lint show up in cargo's reports, so people are warned when they use a dependency that is affected by this.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27336 by removing the feature gate (so there's no way to silence the lint even on nightly)
CC https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/36887
Move the standard library to a separate workspace
This ensures that the Cargo.lock packaged for it in the rust-src component is up-to-date, allowing rust-analyzer to run cargo metadata on the standard library even when the rust-src component is stored in a read-only location as is necessary for loading crates.io dependencies of the standard library.
This also simplifies tidy's license check for runtime dependencies as it can now look at all entries in library/Cargo.lock without having to filter for just the dependencies of runtime crates. In addition this allows removing an exception in check_runtime_license_exceptions that was necessary due to the compiler enabling a feature on the object crate which pulls in a dependency not allowed for the standard library.
While cargo workspaces normally enable dependencies of multiple targets to be reused, for the standard library we do not want this reusing to prevent conflicts between dependencies of the sysroot and of tools that are built using this sysroot. For this reason we already use an unstable cargo feature to ensure that any dependencies which would otherwise be shared get a different -Cmetadata argument as well as using separate build dirs.
This doesn't change the situation around vendoring. We already have several cargo workspaces that need to be vendored. Adding another one doesn't change much.
There are also no cargo profiles that are shared between the root workspace and the library workspace anyway, so it doesn't add any extra work when changing cargo profiles.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #128305 (improve error message when `global_asm!` uses `asm!` operands)
- #128526 (time.rs: remove "Basic usage text")
- #128531 (Miri: add a flag to do recursive validity checking)
- #128578 (rustdoc: Cleanup `CacheBuilder` code for building search index)
- #128589 (allow setting `link-shared` and `static-libstdcpp` with CI LLVM)
- #128615 (rustdoc: make the hover trail for doc anchors a bit bigger)
- #128620 (Update rinja version to 0.3.0)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
improve error message when `global_asm!` uses `asm!` operands
follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128207
what was
```
error: expected expression, found keyword `in`
--> src/lib.rs:1:31
|
1 | core::arch::global_asm!("{}", in(reg));
| ^^ expected expression
```
becomes
```
error: the `in` operand cannot be used with `global_asm!`
--> $DIR/parse-error.rs:150:19
|
LL | global_asm!("{}", in(reg));
| ^^ the `in` operand is not meaningful for global-scoped inline assembly, remove it
```
the span of the error is just the keyword, which means that we can't create a machine-applicable suggestion here. The alternative would be to attempt to parse the full operand, but then if there are syntax errors in the operand those would be presented to the user, even though the parser already knows that the output won't be valid. Also that would require more complexity in the parser.
So I think this is a nice improvement at very low cost.
Migrate `print-target-list` to `rmake` and `print-calling-convention` to ui-test
Part of #121876.
r? `@jieyouxu`
try-job: x86_64-gnu-llvm-18
try-job: test-various
try-job: armhf-gnu
try-job: aarch64-apple
try-job: i686-mingw
try-job: x86_64-msvc
Update run-make/used to use `any_symbol_contains`
This makes it so we don't need `nm` or `llvm-nm`.
I also tested that `BAR` is removed. I'm not sure if this is wanted though.
Assert that all attributes are actually checked via `CheckAttrVisitor` and aren't accidentally usable on completely unrelated HIR nodes
``@oli-obk's`` #128444 with unreachable case removed to avoid that PR bitrotting away.
Based on #128402.
This PR will make adding a new attribute ICE on any use of that attribute unless it gets a handler added in `rustc_passes::CheckAttrVisitor`.
r? ``@nnethercote`` (since you were the reviewer of the original PR)
Implement `UncheckedIterator` directly for `RepeatN`
This just pulls the code out of `next` into `next_unchecked`, rather than making the `Some` and `unwrap_unchecked`ing it.
And while I was touching it, I added a codegen test that `array::repeat` for something that's just `Clone`, not `Copy`, still ends up optimizing to the same thing as `[x; n]`: <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/YY3a5ajMW>.
Simplify match based on the cast result of `IntToInt`
Continue to complete #124150. The condition in #120614 is wrong, e.g. `-1i8` cannot be converted to `255i16`. I've rethought the issue and simplified the conditional judgment for a more straightforward approach. The new approach is to check **if the case value after the `IntToInt` conversion equals the target value**.
In different types, `IntToInt` uses different casting methods. This rule is as follows:
- `i8`/`u8` to `i8`/`u8`: do nothing.
- `i8` to `i16`/`u16`: sign extension.
- `u8` to `i16`/`u16`: zero extension.
- `i16`/`u16` to `i8`/`u8`: truncate to the target size.
The previous error was a mix of zext and sext.
r? mir-opt
Revert recent changes to dead code analysis
This is a revert to recent changes to dead code analysis, namely:
* efdf219 Rollup merge of #128104 - mu001999-contrib:fix/128053, r=petrochenkov
* a70dc297a8 Rollup merge of #127017 - mu001999-contrib:dead/enhance, r=pnkfelix
* 31fe9628cf Rollup merge of #127107 - mu001999-contrib:dead/enhance-2, r=pnkfelix
* 2724aeaaeb Rollup merge of #126618 - mu001999-contrib:dead/enhance, r=pnkfelix
* 977c5fd419 Rollup merge of #126315 - mu001999-contrib:fix/126289, r=petrochenkov
* 13314df21b Rollup merge of #125572 - mu001999-contrib:dead/enhance, r=pnkfelix
There is an additional change stacked on top, which suppresses false-negatives that were masked by this work. I believe the functions that are touched in that code are legitimately unused functions and the types are not reachable since this `AnonPipe` type is not publically reachable -- please correct me if I'm wrong cc `@NobodyXu` who added these in ##127153.
Some of these reverts (#126315 and #126618) are only included because it makes the revert apply cleanly, and I think these changes were only done to fix follow-ups from the other PRs?
I apologize for the size of the PR and the churn that it has on the codebase (and for reverting `@mu001999's` work here), but I'm putting this PR up because I am concerned that we're making ad-hoc changes to fix bugs that are fallout of these PRs, and I'd like to see these changes reimplemented in a way that's more separable from the existing dead code pass. I am happy to review any code to reapply these changes in a more separable way.
cc `@mu001999`
r? `@pnkfelix`
Fixes#128272Fixes#126169
