Async drop codegen
Async drop implementation using templated coroutine for async drop glue generation.
Scopes changes to generate `async_drop_in_place()` awaits, when async droppable objects are out-of-scope in async context.
Implementation details:
https://github.com/azhogin/posts/blob/main/async-drop-impl.md
New fields in Drop terminator (drop & async_fut). Processing in codegen/miri must validate that those fields are empty (in full version async Drop terminator will be expanded at StateTransform pass or reverted to sync version). Changes in terminator visiting to consider possible new successor (drop field).
ResumedAfterDrop messages for panic when coroutine is resumed after it is started to be async drop'ed.
Lang item for generated coroutine for async function async_drop_in_place. `async fn async_drop_in_place<T>()::{{closure0}}`.
Scopes processing for generate async drop preparations. Async drop is a hidden Yield, so potentially async drops require the same dropline preparation as for Yield terminators.
Processing in StateTransform: async drops are expanded into yield-point. Generation of async drop of coroutine itself added.
Shims for AsyncDropGlueCtorShim, AsyncDropGlue and FutureDropPoll.
```rust
#[lang = "async_drop"]
pub trait AsyncDrop {
#[allow(async_fn_in_trait)]
async fn drop(self: Pin<&mut Self>);
}
impl Drop for Foo {
fn drop(&mut self) {
println!("Foo::drop({})", self.my_resource_handle);
}
}
impl AsyncDrop for Foo {
async fn drop(self: Pin<&mut Self>) {
println!("Foo::async drop({})", self.my_resource_handle);
}
}
```
First async drop glue implementation re-worked to use the same drop elaboration code as for sync drop.
`async_drop_in_place` changed to be `async fn`. So both `async_drop_in_place` ctor and produced coroutine have their lang items (`AsyncDropInPlace`/`AsyncDropInPlacePoll`) and shim instances (`AsyncDropGlueCtorShim`/`AsyncDropGlue`).
```
pub async unsafe fn async_drop_in_place<T: ?Sized>(_to_drop: *mut T) {
}
```
AsyncDropGlue shim generation uses `elaborate_drops::elaborate_drop` to produce drop ladder (in the similar way as for sync drop glue) and then `coroutine::StateTransform` to convert function into coroutine poll.
AsyncDropGlue coroutine's layout can't be calculated for generic T, it requires known final dropee type to be generated (in StateTransform). So, `templated coroutine` was introduced here (`templated_coroutine_layout(...)` etc).
Such approach overrides the first implementation using mixing language-level futures in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121801.
This rewires SCC annotations to have them be a separate,
visitor-type data structure. It was broken out of #130227,
which needed them to be able to remove unused annotations
after computation without recomputing the SCCs themselves.
As a drive-by it also removes some redundant code from
the hot loop in SCC construction for a performance improvement.
This patch has deliberately been kept small and simple, to make it easier to
revert if necessary. Further cleanup can take palce after we're confident that
it won't need to be reverted.
Remove `weak` alias terminology
I find the "weak" alias terminology to be quite confusing. It implies the existence of "strong" aliases (which do not exist) and I'm not really sure what about weak aliases is "weak". I much prefer "free alias" as the term. I think it's much more obvious what it means as "free function" is a well defined term that already exists in rust.
It's also a little confusing given "weak alias" is already a term in linker/codegen spaces which are part of the compiler too. Though I'm not particularly worried about that as it's usually very obvious if you're talking about the type system or not lol. I'm also currently trying to write documentation about aliases and it's somewhat awkward/confusing to be talking about *weak* aliases, when I'm not really sure what the basis for that as the term actually *is*.
I would also be happy to just find out there's a nice meaning behind calling them "weak" aliases :-)
r? `@oli-obk`
maybe we want a types MCP to decide on a specific naming here? or maybe we think its just too late to go back on this naming decision ^^'
Introduce `BoxMarker` to improve pretty-printing correctness
Box opening/closing is really easy to get wrong in the pretty-printers. This PR makes it much harder to get wrong.
r? `@Urgau`
Remove `weak` alias terminology
I find the "weak" alias terminology to be quite confusing. It implies the existence of "strong" aliases (which do not exist) and I'm not really sure what about weak aliases is "weak". I much prefer "free alias" as the term. I think it's much more obvious what it means as "free function" is a well defined term that already exists in rust.
It's also a little confusing given "weak alias" is already a term in linker/codegen spaces which are part of the compiler too. Though I'm not particularly worried about that as it's usually very obvious if you're talking about the type system or not lol. I'm also currently trying to write documentation about aliases and it's somewhat awkward/confusing to be talking about *weak* aliases, when I'm not really sure what the basis for that as the term actually *is*.
I would also be happy to just find out there's a nice meaning behind calling them "weak" aliases :-)
r? `@oli-obk`
maybe we want a types MCP to decide on a specific naming here? or maybe we think its just too late to go back on this naming decision ^^'
Fix detection of main function if there are expressions around it
Fixes#140162.
Fixes#139651.
Once this is merged, we can backport and I'll send a follow-up to emit a warning in case a `main` function is about to be "wrapped" (and therefore not run).
r? `@fmease`
try-job: x86_64-mingw-1
Move the public `CommandEnvs` into the `process` module (and make it a wrapper type for an internal iterator type) and everything else into `sys::process` as per #117276.
Implement a lint for implicit autoref of raw pointer dereference - take 2
*[t-lang nomination comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123239#issuecomment-2727551097)*
This PR aims at implementing a lint for implicit autoref of raw pointer dereference, it is based on #103735 with suggestion and improvements from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103735#issuecomment-1370420305.
The goal is to catch cases like this, where the user probably doesn't realise it just created a reference.
```rust
pub struct Test {
data: [u8],
}
pub fn test_len(t: *const Test) -> usize {
unsafe { (*t).data.len() } // this calls <[T]>::len(&self)
}
```
Since #103735 already went 2 times through T-lang, where they T-lang ended-up asking for a more restricted version (which is what this PR does), I would prefer this PR to be reviewed first before re-nominating it for T-lang.
----
Compared to the PR it is as based on, this PR adds 3 restrictions on the outer most expression, which must either be:
1. A deref followed by any non-deref place projection (that intermediate deref will typically be auto-inserted)
2. A method call annotated with `#[rustc_no_implicit_refs]`.
3. A deref followed by a `addr_of!` or `addr_of_mut!`. See bottom of post for details.
There are several points that are not 100% clear to me when implementing the modifications:
- ~~"4. Any number of automatically inserted deref/derefmut calls." I as never able to trigger this. Am I missing something?~~ Fixed
- Are "index" and "field" enough?
----
cc `@JakobDegen` `@WaffleLapkin`
r? `@RalfJung`
try-job: dist-various-1
try-job: dist-various-2
