Bump boostrap compiler to new beta
Currently failing due to something about the const stability checks and `panic!`. I'm not sure why though since I wasn't able to see any PRs merged in the past few days that would result in a `cfg(bootstrap)` that shouldn't be removed. cc `@RalfJung` #131349
Operations like is_aligned would return actively wrong results at compile-time,
i.e. calling it on the same pointer at compiletime and runtime could yield
different results. That's no good.
Instead of having hacks to make align_offset kind-of work in const-eval, just
use const_eval_select in the few places where it makes sense, which also ensures
those places are all aware they need to make sure the fallback behavior is
consistent.
feat(byte_sub_ptr): unstably add ptr::byte_sub_ptr
This is an API that naturally should exist as a combination of byte_offset_from and sub_ptr
both existing (they showed up at similar times so this union was never made). Adding these
is a logical (and perhaps final) precondition of stabilizing ptr_sub_ptr (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95892).
Original PR by ``@Gankra`` (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121919), I am just reviving it. The 2nd commit (with a small docs tweak) is by me.
remove some unnecessary rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable
These are either unstable functions that don't need the attribute, or the attribute refers to a feature that is already stable.
This is an API that naturally should exist as a combination of byte_offset_from and sub_ptr
both existing (they showed up at similar times so this union was never made). Adding these
is a logical (and perhaps final) precondition of stabilizing ptr_sub_ptr (#95892).
Const stability checks v2
The const stability system has served us well ever since `const fn` were first stabilized. It's main feature is that it enforces *recursive* validity -- a stable const fn cannot internally make use of unstable const features without an explicit marker in the form of `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable]`. This is done to make sure that we don't accidentally expose unstable const features on stable in a way that would be hard to take back. As part of this, it is enforced that a `#[rustc_const_stable]` can only call `#[rustc_const_stable]` functions. However, some problems have been coming up with increased usage:
- It is baffling that we have to mark private or even unstable functions as `#[rustc_const_stable]` when they are used as helpers in regular stable `const fn`, and often people will rather add `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable]` instead which was not our intention.
- The system has several gaping holes: a private `const fn` without stability attributes whose inherited stability (walking up parent modules) is `#[stable]` is allowed to call *arbitrary* unstable const operations, but can itself be called from stable `const fn`. Similarly, `#[allow_internal_unstable]` on a macro completely bypasses the recursive nature of the check.
Fundamentally, the problem is that we have *three* disjoint categories of functions, and not enough attributes to distinguish them:
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
Functions in the first two categories cannot use unstable const features and they can only call functions from the first two categories.
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, all the holes mentioned above have been 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 be manually marked `#[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.
Also see the updated dev-guide at https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/2098.
I think in the future we may want to tweak this further, so that in the hopefully common case where a public function's const-stability just exactly mirrors its regular stability, we never have to add any attribute. But right now, once the function is stable this requires `#[rustc_const_stable]`.
### Open question
There is one point I could see we might want to do differently, and that is putting `#[rustc_const_unstable]` functions (but not intrinsics) in category 2 by default, and requiring an extra attribute for `#[rustc_const_not_exposed_on_stable]` or so. This would require a bunch of extra annotations, but would have the advantage that turning a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` into `#[rustc_const_stable]` will never change the way the function is const-checked. Currently, we often discover in the const stabilization PR that a function needs some other unstable const things, and then we rush to quickly deal with that. In this alternative universe, we'd work towards getting rid of the `rustc_const_not_exposed_on_stable` before stabilization, and once that is done stabilization becomes a trivial matter. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` would then only be used for intrinsics.
I think I like this idea, but might want to do it in a follow-up PR, as it will need a whole bunch of annotations in the standard library. Also, we probably want to convert all const intrinsics to the "new" form (`#[rustc_intrinsic]` instead of an `extern` block) before doing this to avoid having to deal with two different ways of declaring intrinsics.
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` `@rust-lang/libs-api`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129815 (but not finished since this is not yet sufficient to safely let us expose `const fn` from hashbrown)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131073 by making it so that const-stable functions are always stable
try-job: test-various
library: consistently use American spelling for 'behavior'
We use "behavior" a lot more often than "behaviour", but some "behaviour" have even snuck into user-facing docs. This makes the spelling consistent.
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.
Expand `ptr::fn_addr_eq()` documentation.
* Describe more clearly what is (not) guaranteed, and de-emphasize the description of rustc implementation details.
* Explain what you *can* reliably use it for.
Tracking issue for `ptr_fn_addr_eq`: #129322
The motivation for this PR is that I just learned that `ptr::fn_addr_eq()` exists, read the documentation, and thought: “*I* know what this means, but someone not already familiar with how `rustc` works could be left wondering whether this is even good for anything.” Fixing that seems especially important if we’re going to recommend people use it instead of `==` (as per #118833).
Add `from_ref` and `from_mut` constructors to `core::ptr::NonNull`.
Relevant tracking issue: #130823
The `core::ptr::NonNull` type should have the convenience constructors `from_ref` and `from_mut` for parity with `core::ptr::from_ref` and `core::ptr::from_mut`.
Although the type in question already implements `From<&T>` and `From<&mut T>`, these new functions also carry the ability to be used in constant expressions (due to not being behind a trait).
Expand set_ptr_value / with_metadata_of docs
In preparation of a potential FCP, intends to clean up and expand the documentation of this operation.
Rewrite these blobs to explicitly mention the case of a sized operand. The previous made that seem wrong instead of emphasizing it is nothing but a simple cast. Instead, the explanation now emphasizes that the address portion of the argument, together with its provenance, is discarded which previously had to be inferred by the reader. Then an example demonstrates a simple line of incorrect usage based on this idea of provenance.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/75091
Update precondition tests (especially for zero-size access to null)
I don't much like the current way I've updated the precondition check helpers, but I couldn't come up with anything better. Ideas welcome.
I've organized `tests/ui/precondition-checks` mostly with one file per function that has `assert_unsafe_precondition` in it, with revisions that check each precondition. The important new test is `tests/ui/precondition-checks/zero-size-null.rs`.
Rewrite these blobs to explicitly mention the case of a sized operand.
The previous made that seem wrong instead of emphasizing it is nothing
but a simple cast. Instead, the explanation now emphasizes that the
address portion of the argument, together with its provenance, is
discarded which previously had to be inferred by the reader. Then an
example demonstrates a simple line of incorrect usage based on this
idea of provenance.
