Assert that args are actually compatible with their generics, rather than just their count
Right now we just check that the number of args is right, rather than actually checking the kinds. Uplift a helper fn that I wrote from trait selection to do just that. Found a couple bugs along the way.
r? `@lcnr` or `@fmease` (or anyone really lol)
More postfix match fixes
These affect diagnostics only, as far as I can tell. I'm too lazy to come up with UI tests, but I could be convinced otherwise.
Specifically, I think changing the precedence computation actually doesn't change anything, but tweaking `contains_exterior_struct_lit` does mean that some diagnostics will begin parenthesizing `S {}.match {}`.
pattern analysis: fix union handling
Little known fact: rust supports union patterns. Exhaustiveness handles them soundly but reports nonsensical missing patterns. This PR fixes the reported patterns and documents what we're doing.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Rename `expose_addr` to `expose_provenance`
`expose_addr` is a bad name, an address is just a number and cannot be exposed. The operation is actually about the provenance of the pointer.
This PR thus changes the name of the method to `expose_provenance` without changing its return type. There is sufficient precedence for returning a useful value from an operation that does something else without the name indicating such, e.g. [`Option::insert`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/option/enum.Option.html#method.insert) and [`MaybeUninit::write`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/mem/union.MaybeUninit.html#method.write).
Returning the address is merely convenient, not a fundamental part of the operation. This is implied by the fact that integers do not have provenance since
```rust
let addr = ptr.addr();
ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
must behave exactly like
```rust
let addr = ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
as the result of `ptr.expose_provenance()` and `ptr.addr()` is the same integer. Therefore, this PR removes the `#[must_use]` annotation on the function and updates the documentation to reflect the important part.
~~An alternative name would be `expose_provenance`. I'm not at all opposed to that, but it makes a stronger implication than we might want that the provenance of the pointer returned by `ptr::with_exposed_provenance`[^1] is the same as that what was exposed, which is not yet specified as such IIUC. IMHO `expose` does not make that connection.~~
A previous version of this PR suggested `expose` as name, libs-api [decided on](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122964#issuecomment-2033194319) `expose_provenance` to keep the symmetry with `with_exposed_provenance`.
CC `@RalfJung`
r? libs-api
[^1]: I'm using the new name for `from_exposed_addr` suggested by #122935 here.
Better reporting on generic argument mismatchs
This allows better reporting as per issue #116615 .
If you have a function:
```
fn foo(a: T, b: T) {}
```
and call it like so:
```
foo(1, 2.)
```
it'll give improved error reported similar to the following:
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> generic-mismatch-reporting-issue-116615.rs:6:12
|
6 | foo(1, 2.);
| --- - ^^ expected integer, found floating-point number
| | |
| | expected argument `b` to be an integer because that argument needs to match the type of this parameter
| arguments to this function are incorrect
|
note: function defined here
--> generic-mismatch-reporting-issue-116615.rs:1:4
|
1 | fn foo<T>(a: T, b: T) {}
| ^^^ - ---- ----
| | | |
| | | this parameter needs to match the integer type of `a`
| | `b` needs to match the type of this parameter
| `a` and `b` all reference this parameter T
```
Open question, do we need to worry about error message translation into other languages? Not sure what the status of that is in Rust.
NB: Needs some checking over and some tests have altered that need sanity checking, but overall this is starting to get somewhere now. Will take out of draft PR status when this has been done, raising now to allow feedback at this stage, probably 90% ready.
Assert `FnDef` kind
Only found one bug, where we were using the variant def id rather than its ctor def id to make the `FnDef` for a `type_of`
r? fmease
Remove MIR unsafe check
Now that THIR unsafeck is enabled by default in stable I think we can remove MIR unsafeck entirely. This PR also removes safety information from MIR.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #122411 ( Provide cabi_realloc on wasm32-wasip2 by default )
- #123349 (Fix capture analysis for by-move closure bodies)
- #123359 (Link against libc++abi and libunwind as well when building LLVM wrappers on AIX)
- #123388 (use a consistent style for links)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Link against libc++abi and libunwind as well when building LLVM wrappers on AIX
Unlike `libc++.so` on Linux which is a linker script
```ld
INPUT(libc++.so.1 -lc++abi -lunwind)
```
AIX linker doesn't support such script, so `c++abi` and `unwind` have to be specified explicitly.
Fix capture analysis for by-move closure bodies
The check we were doing to figure out if a coroutine was borrowing from its parent coroutine-closure was flat-out wrong -- a misunderstanding of mine of the way that `tcx.closure_captures` represents its captures.
Fixes#123251 (the miri/ui test I added should more than cover that issue)
r? `@oli-obk` -- I recognize that this PR may be underdocumented, so please ask me what I should explain further.
Rename `UninhabitedEnumBranching` to `UnreachableEnumBranching`
Per [#120268](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120268#discussion_r1517492060), I rename `UninhabitedEnumBranching` to `UnreachableEnumBranching` .
I solved some nits to add some comments.
I adjusted the workaround restrictions. This should be useful for `a <= b` and `if let Some/Ok(v)`. For enum with few variants, `early-tailduplication` should not cause compile time overhead.
r? RalfJung
Avoid expanding to unstable internal method
Fixes#123156
Rather than expanding to `std::rt::begin_panic`, the expansion is now to `unreachable!()`. The resulting behavior is identical. A test that previously triggered the same error as #123156 has been added to ensure it does not regress.
r? compiler
rename ptr::from_exposed_addr -> ptr::with_exposed_provenance
As discussed on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/To.20expose.20or.20not.20to.20expose/near/427757066).
The old name, `from_exposed_addr`, makes little sense as it's not the address that is exposed, it's the provenance. (`ptr.expose_addr()` stays unchanged as we haven't found a better option yet. The intended interpretation is "expose the provenance and return the address".)
The new name nicely matches `ptr::without_provenance`.
Make inductive cycles always ambiguous
This makes inductive cycles always result in ambiguity rather than be treated like a stack-dependent error.
This has some interactions with specialization, and so breaks a few UI tests that I don't agree should've ever worked in the first place, and also breaks a handful of crates in a way that I don't believe is a problem.
On the bright side, it puts us in a better spot when it comes to eventually enabling coinduction everywhere.
## Results
This was cratered in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116494#issuecomment-2008657494, which boils down to two regressions:
* `lu_packets` - This code should have never compiled in the first place. More below.
* **ALL** other regressions are due to `commit_verify@0.11.0-beta.1` (edit: and `commit_verify@0.10.x`) - This actually seems to be fixed in version `0.11.0-beta.5`, which is the *most* up to date version, but it's still prerelease on crates.io so I don't think cargo ends up picking `beta.5` when building dependent crates.
### `lu_packets`
Firstly, this crate uses specialization, so I think it's automatically worth breaking. However, I've minimized [the regression](https://crater-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/pr-116494-3/try%23d614ed876e31a5f3ad1d0fbf848fcdab3a29d1d8/gh/lcdr.lu_packets/log.txt) to:
```rust
// Upstream crate
pub trait Serialize {}
impl Serialize for &() {}
impl<S> Serialize for &[S] where for<'a> &'a S: Serialize {}
// ----------------------------------------------------------------------- //
// Downstream crate
#![feature(specialization)]
#![allow(incomplete_features, unused)]
use upstream::Serialize;
trait Replica {
fn serialize();
}
impl<T> Replica for T {
default fn serialize() {}
}
impl<T> Replica for Option<T>
where
for<'a> &'a T: Serialize,
{
fn serialize() {}
}
```
Specifically this fails when computing the specialization graph for the `downstream` crate.
The code ends up cycling on `&[?0]: Serialize` when we equate `&?0 = &[?1]` during impl matching, which ends up needing to prove `&[?1]: Serialize`, which since cycles are treated like ambiguity, ends up in a **fatal overflow**. For some reason this requires two crates, squashing them into one crate doesn't work.
Side-note: This code is subtly order dependent. When minimizing, I ended up having the code start failing on `nightly` very easily after removing and reordering impls. This seems to me all the more reason to remove this behavior altogether.
## Side-note: Item Bounds (edit: this was fixed independently in #121123)
Due to the changes in #120584 where we now consider an alias's item bounds *and* all the item bounds of the alias's nested self type aliases, I've had to add e6b64c6194 which is a hack to make sure we're not eagerly normalizing bounds that have nothing to do with the predicate we're trying to solve, and which result in.
This is fixed in a more principled way in #121123.
---
r? lcnr for an initial review
CFI: Support non-general coroutines
Previously, we assumed all `ty::Coroutine` were general coroutines and attempted to generalize them through the `Coroutine` trait. Select appropriate traits for each kind of coroutine.
I have this marked as a draft because it currently only fixes async coroutines, and I think it make sense to try to fix gen/async gen coroutines before this is merged.
If the issue [mentioned](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123106#issuecomment-2030794213) in the original PR is actually affecting someone, we can land this as is to remedy it.
Check that nested statics in thread locals are duplicated per thread.
follow-up to #123310
cc ``@compiler-errors`` ``@RalfJung``
fwiw: I have no idea how thread local statics make that work under LLVM, and miri fails on this example, which I would have expected to be the correct behaviour.
Since the `#[thread_local]` attribute is just an internal implementation detail, I'm just going to start hard erroring on nested mutable statics in thread locals.
Make sure to insert `Sized` bound first into clauses list
#120323 made it so that we don't insert an implicit `Sized` bound whenever we see an *explicit* `Sized` bound. However, since the code that inserts implicit sized bounds puts the bound as the *first* in the list, that means that it had the **side-effect** of possibly meaning we check `Sized` *after* checking other trait bounds.
If those trait bounds result in ambiguity or overflow or something, it may change how we winnow candidates. (**edit: SEE** #123303) This is likely the cause for the regression in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123279#issuecomment-2028899598, since the impl...
```rust
impl<T: Job + Sized> AsJob for T { // <----- changing this to `Sized + Job` or just `Job` (which turns into `Sized + Job`) will FIX the issue.
}
```
...looks incredibly suspicious.
Fixes [after beta-backport] #123279.
Alternative is to revert #120323. I don't have a strong opinion about this, but think it may be nice to keep the diagnostic changes around.
De-LLVM the unchecked shifts [MCP#693]
This is just one part of the MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/693), but it's the one that IMHO removes the most noise from the standard library code.
Seems net simpler this way, since MIR already supported heterogeneous shifts anyway, and thus it's not more work for backends than before.
r? WaffleLapkin
Add `Ord::cmp` for primitives as a `BinOp` in MIR
Update: most of this OP was written months ago. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118310#issuecomment-2016940014 below for where we got to recently that made it ready for review.
---
There are dozens of reasonable ways to implement `Ord::cmp` for integers using comparison, bit-ops, and branches. Those differences are irrelevant at the rust level, however, so we can make things better by adding `BinOp::Cmp` at the MIR level:
1. Exactly how to implement it is left up to the backends, so LLVM can use whatever pattern its optimizer best recognizes and cranelift can use whichever pattern codegens the fastest.
2. By not inlining those details for every use of `cmp`, we drastically reduce the amount of MIR generated for `derive`d `PartialOrd`, while also making it more amenable to MIR-level optimizations.
Having extremely careful `if` ordering to μoptimize resource usage on broadwell (#63767) is great, but it really feels to me like libcore is the wrong place to put that logic. Similarly, using subtraction [tricks](https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#CopyIntegerSign) (#105840) is arguably even nicer, but depends on the optimizer understanding it (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/73417) to be practical. Or maybe [bitor is better than add](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/representing-in-ir/67369/2?u=scottmcm)? But maybe only on a future version that [has `or disjoint` support](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-add-or-disjoint-flag/75036?u=scottmcm)? And just because one of those forms happens to be good for LLVM, there's no guarantee that it'd be the same form that GCC or Cranelift would rather see -- especially given their very different optimizers. Not to mention that if LLVM gets a spaceship intrinsic -- [which it should](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Suboptimal.20inlining.20in.20std.20function.20.60binary_search.60/near/404250586) -- we'll need at least a rustc intrinsic to be able to call it.
As for simplifying it in Rust, we now regularly inline `{integer}::partial_cmp`, but it's quite a large amount of IR. The best way to see that is with 8811efa88b (diff-d134c32d028fbe2bf835fef2df9aca9d13332dd82284ff21ee7ebf717bfa4765R113) -- I added a new pre-codegen MIR test for a simple 3-tuple struct, and this PR change it from 36 locals and 26 basic blocks down to 24 locals and 8 basic blocks. Even better, as soon as the construct-`Some`-then-match-it-in-same-BB noise is cleaned up, this'll expose the `Cmp == 0` branches clearly in MIR, so that an InstCombine (#105808) can simplify that to just a `BinOp::Eq` and thus fix some of our generated code perf issues. (Tracking that through today's `if a < b { Less } else if a == b { Equal } else { Greater }` would be *much* harder.)
---
r? `@ghost`
But first I should check that perf is ok with this
~~...and my true nemesis, tidy.~~
