clarify MIR uninit vs LLVM undef/poison
In [this LLVM discussion](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-load-instruction-uninitialized-memory-semantics/67481) I learned that mapping our uninitialized memory in MIR to poison in LLVM would be quite problematic due to the lack of a byte type. I am not sure where to write down this insight but this seems like a reasonable start.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #113887 (new solver: add a separate cache for coherence)
- #113910 (Add FnPtr ty to SMIR)
- #113913 (error/E0691: include alignment in error message)
- #113914 (rustc_target: drop duplicate code)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
make full field retagging the default
The 'scalar' field retagging mode is clearly a hack -- it mirrors details of the codegen backend and how various structs are represented in LLVM. This means whether code has UB or not depends on surprising aspects, such as whether a struct has 2 or 3 (non-zero-sized) fields. Now that both hashbrown and scopeguard have released fixes to be compatible with field retagging, I think it is time to enable full field retagging by default.
`@saethlin` do you have an idea of how much fallout enabling full field retagging by default will cause? Do you have objections to enabling it by default?
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2528
rustc_target: drop duplicate code
Drop duplicate helper methods on `Layout`, which are already implemented on `LayoutS`. Note that `Layout` has a `Deref` implementation to `LayoutS`, so all accessors are automatically redirected.
The methods are identical and have been copied to `rustc_abi` in:
commit 390a637e29
Author: hamidreza kalbasi <hamidrezakalbasi@protonmail.com>
Date: Mon Nov 7 00:36:11 2022 +0330
move things from rustc_target::abi to rustc_abi
This commit left behind the original implementation. Drop it now.
(originally moved by ``@HKalbasi)``
error/E0691: include alignment in error message
Include the computed alignment of the violating field when rejecting transparent types with non-trivially aligned ZSTs.
ZST member fields in transparent types must have an alignment of 1 (to ensure it does not raise the layout requirements of the transparent field). The current error message looks like this:
```text
LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
| ^^^^^^^^ has alignment larger than 1
```
This patch changes the report to include the alignment of the violating field:
```text
LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
| ^^^^^^^^ has alignment of 4, which is larger than 1
```
In case of unknown alignments, it will yield:
```text
LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
| ^^^^^^^^ may have alignment larger than 1
```
This allows developers to get a better grasp why a specific field is rejected. Knowing the alignment of the violating field makes it easier to judge where that alignment-requirement originates, and thus hopefully provide better hints on how to mitigate the problem.
This idea was proposed in 2022 in #98071 as part of a bigger change. This commit simply extracts this error-message change, to decouple it from the other diagnostic improvements.
(Originally proposed by `@compiler-errors` in #98071)
Prototype: Add unstable `-Z reference-niches` option
MCP: rust-lang/compiler-team#641
Relevant RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#3204
This prototype adds a new `-Z reference-niches` option, controlling the range of valid bit-patterns for reference types (`&T` and `&mut T`), thereby enabling new enum niching opportunities. Like `-Z randomize-layout`, this setting is crate-local; as such, references to built-in types (primitives, tuples, ...) are not affected.
The possible settings are (here, `MAX` denotes the all-1 bit-pattern):
| `-Z reference-niches=` | Valid range |
|:---:|:---:|
| `null` (the default) | `1..=MAX` |
| `size` | `1..=(MAX- size)` |
| `align` | `align..=MAX.align_down_to(align)` |
| `size,align` | `align..=(MAX-size).align_down_to(align)` |
------
This is very WIP, and I'm not sure the approach I've taken here is the best one, but stage 1 tests pass locally; I believe this is in a good enough state to unleash this upon unsuspecting 3rd-party code, and see what breaks.
Now that this lint runs on any external-ABI fn-ptr, normalization won't
always succeed, so use `try_normalize_erasing_regions` instead.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
style-guide: Some cleanups from the fmt-rfcs repo history
There were a few commits that seem to have gone missing between the fmt-rfcs repo and the style guide. Re-apply those commits to the version of the style-guide in `rust-lang/rust`.
All of these are cleanups that don't change meaning.
Still more complexity, but this allows computing exact `NaiveLayout`s
for null-optimized enums, and thus allows calls like
`transmute::<Option<&T>, &U>()` to work in generic contexts.
avoid clone path prefix when lowering to hir
Found this while trying to parallelize `lower_to_hir`.
When lowering to hir, `Nested` paths in `ast` will be split and the prefix segments will be cloned. This could be omited, since the only consequence is that the prefix segments in `Path`s in hir will have the same `HirId`s, and it seems harmless.
This simplifies the process of lowering to hir and avoids re-modification of `ResolverAstLowering`.
r? `@Aaron1011`
cc #99292
Substitute types before checking inlining compatibility.
Addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/112332 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113781
I don't have a minimal test, but I this seems to remove the ICE locally.
This whole pre-inlining validation mirrors the "real" MIR validation pass to verify that inlined MIR will still pass validation.
The debuginfo loop is added because MIR validation check projections in debuginfo.
Likewise, MIR validation only checks `is_subtype`, so there is no reason for a stronger check.
The types were not being substituted in `check_equal`, so we were not bailing out of inlining if the substituted MIR callee body would not pass validation.
Include the computed alignment of the violating field when rejecting
transparent types with non-trivially aligned ZSTs.
ZST member fields in transparent types must have an alignment of 1 (to
ensure it does not raise the layout requirements of the transparent
field). The current error message looks like this:
LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
| ^^^^^^^^ has alignment larger than 1
This patch changes the report to include the alignment of the violating
field:
LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
| ^^^^^^^^ has alignment of 4, which is larger than 1
In case of unknown alignments, it will yield:
LL | struct Foobar<T>(u32, [T; 0]);
| ^^^^^^ may have alignment larger than 1
This allows developers to get a better grasp why a specific field is
rejected. Knowing the alignment of the violating field makes it easier
to judge where that alignment-requirement originates, and thus hopefully
provide better hints on how to mitigate the problem.
This idea was proposed in 2022 in #98071 as part of a bigger change.
This commit simply extracts this error-message change, to decouple it
from the other diagnostic improvements.
Drop duplicate helper methods on `Layout`, which are already implemented
on `LayoutS`. Note that `Layout` has a `Deref` implementation to
`LayoutS`, so all accessors are automatically redirected.
The methods are identical and have been copied to `rustc_abi` in:
commit 390a637e29
Author: hamidreza kalbasi <hamidrezakalbasi@protonmail.com>
Date: Mon Nov 7 00:36:11 2022 +0330
move things from rustc_target::abi to rustc_abi
This commit left behind the original implementation. Drop it now.
Signed-off-by: David Rheinsberg <david@readahead.eu>
Use SHA256 source file checksums by default when targeting MSVC
Currently, when targeting Windows (more specifically, the MSVC toolchain), Rust will use SHA1 source file checksums by default. SHA1 has been superseded by SHA256, and Microsoft recommends migrating to SHA256.
As of Visual Studio 2022, MSVC defaults to SHA256. This change aligns Rust and MSVC.
LLVM can already use SHA256 checksums, so this does not require any change to LLVM.
MSVC docs on source file checksums: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/zh?view=msvc-170
Report `incorrect-ident-case` for inner items
Fixes#15319
Although we have been collecting the diagnostics for inner items within function bodies, we were discarding them and never reported to the users. This PR makes sure that they are all reported and additionally collects the diagnostics for inner items within const bodies, static bodies, and enum variant bodies.
