Fixed conflict with drop elaboration and coverage
See
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80045#issuecomment-745733339
Coverage statements are moved to the beginning of the BCB. This does
also affect what's counted before a panic, changing some results, but I
think these results may even be preferred? In any case, there are no
guarantees about what's counted when a panic occurs (by design).
r? `@tmandry`
FYI `@wesleywiser` `@ecstatic-morse`
Fix issue #78496
EarlyOtherwiseBranch finds MIR structures like:
```
bb0: {
...
_2 = discriminant(X)
...
switchInt(_2) -> [1_isize: bb1, otherwise: bb3]
}
bb1: {
...
_3 = discriminant(Y)
...
switchInt(_3) -> [1_isize: bb2, otherwise: bb3]
}
bb2: {...}
bb3: {...}
```
And transforms them into something like:
```
bb0: {
...
_2 = discriminant(X)
_3 = discriminant(Y)
_4 = Eq(_2, _3)
switchInt(_4) -> [true: bb4, otherwise: bb3]
}
bb2: {...} // unchanged
bb3: {...} // unchanged
bb4: {
switchInt(_2) -> [1_isize: bb2, otherwise: bb3]
}
```
But that is not always a safe thing to do -- sometimes the early `otherwise` branch is necessary so the later block could assume the value of `discriminant(X)`.
I am not totally sure what's the best way to detect that, but fixing #78496 should be easy -- we just check if `X` is a sub-expression of `Y`. A more precise test might be to check if `Y` contains a `Downcast(1)` of `X`, but I think this might be good enough.
Fix#78496
Allow `since="TBD"` for rustc_deprecated
Closes#78381.
This PR only affects `#[rustc_deprecated]`, not `#[deprecated]`, so there is no effect on any stable language feature.
Likewise this PR only implements `since="TBD"`, it does not actually tag any library functions with it, so there is no effect on any stable API.
Overview of changes:
* `rustc_middle/stability.rs`:
* change `deprecation_in_effect` function to return `false` when `since="TBD"`
* tidy up the compiler output when a deprecated item has `since="TBD"`
* `rustc_passes/stability.rs`:
* allow `since="TBD"` to pass the sanity check for stable_version < deprecated_version
* refactor the "invalid stability version" and "invalid deprecation version" error into separate errors
* rustdoc: make `since="TBD"` message on a deprecated item's page match the command-line deprecation output
* tests:
* test rustdoc output
* test that the `deprecated_in_future` lint fires when `since="TBD"`
* test the new "invalid deprecation version" error message
Implement if-let match guards
Implements rust-lang/rfcs#2294 (tracking issue: #51114).
I probably should do a few more things before this can be merged:
- [x] Add tests (added basic tests, more advanced tests could be done in the future?)
- [x] Add lint for exhaustive if-let guard (comparable to normal if-let statements)
- [x] Fix clippy
However since this is a nightly feature maybe it's fine to land this and do those steps in follow-up PRs.
Thanks a lot `@matthewjasper` ❤️ for helping me with lowering to MIR! Would you be interested in reviewing this?
r? `@ghost` for now
See
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80045#issuecomment-745733339
Coverage statements are moved to the beginning of the BCB. This does
also affect what's counted before a panic, changing some results, but I
think these results may even be preferred? In any case, there are no
guarantees about what's counted when a panic occurs (by design).
Fixes reported bugs in Rust Coverage
Fixes: #79569Fixes: #79566Fixes: #79565
For the first issue (#79569), I got hit a `debug_assert!()` before
encountering the reported error message (because I have `debug = true`
enabled in my config.toml).
The assertion showed me that some `SwitchInt`s can have more than one
target pointing to the same `BasicBlock`.
I had thought that was invalid, but since it seems to be possible, I'm
allowing this now.
I added a new test for this.
----
In the last two cases above, both tests (intentionally) fail to compile,
but the `InstrumentCoverage` pass is invoked anyway.
The MIR starts with an `Unreachable` `BasicBlock`, which I hadn't
encountered before. (I had assumed the `InstrumentCoverage` pass
would only be invoked with MIRs from successful compilations.)
I don't have test infrastructure set up to test coverage on files that
fail to compile, so I didn't add a new test.
r? `@tmandry`
FYI: `@wesleywiser`
consider assignments of union field of ManuallyDrop type safe
Assigning to `Copy` union fields is safe because that assignment will never drop anything. However, with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77547, unions may also have `ManuallyDrop` fields, and their assignments are currently still unsafe. That seems unnecessary though, as assigning `ManuallyDrop` does not drop anything either, and is thus safe even for union fields.
I assume this will at least require FCP.
[mir-opt] Allow debuginfo to be generated for a constant or a Place
Prior to this commit, debuginfo was always generated by mapping a name
to a Place. This has the side-effect that `SimplifyLocals` cannot remove
locals that are only used for debuginfo because their other uses have
been const-propagated.
To allow these locals to be removed, we now allow debuginfo to point to
a constant value. The `ConstProp` pass detects when debuginfo points to
a local with a known constant value and replaces it with the value. This
allows the later `SimplifyLocals` pass to remove the local.
Properly capture trailing 'unglued' token
If we try to capture the `Vec<u8>` in `Option<Vec<u8>>`, we'll
need to capture a `>` token which was 'unglued' from a `>>` token.
The processing of unglueing a token for parsing purposes bypasses the
usual capturing infrastructure, so we currently lose the trailing `>`.
As a result, we fall back to the reparsed `TokenStream`, causing us to
lose spans.
This commit makes token capturing keep track of a trailing 'unglued'
token. Note that we don't need to care about unglueing except at the end
of the captured tokens - if we capture both the first and second unglued
tokens, then we'll end up capturing the full 'glued' token, which
already works correctly.
Recover on `const impl<> X for Y`
`@leonardo-m` mentioned that `const impl Foo for Bar` could be recovered from in #79287.
I'm not sure about the error strings as they are, I think it should probably be something like the error that `expected_one_of_not_found` makes + the suggestion to flip the keywords, but I'm not sure how exactly to do that. Also, I decided not to try to handle `const unsafe impl` or `unsafe const impl` cause I figured that `unsafe impl const` would be pretty rare anyway (if it's even valid?), and it wouldn't be worth making the code more messy.
Resolve enum field visibility correctly
Fixes#79593. 🎉
Previously, this code treated enum fields' visibility as if they were
struct fields. However, that's not correct because the visibility of a
struct field with `ast::VisibilityKind::Inherited` is private to the
module it's defined in, whereas the visibility of an *enum* field with
`ast::VisibilityKind::Inherited` is the visibility of the enum it
belongs to.
Previously, this code treated enum fields' visibility as if they were
struct fields. However, that's not correct because the visibility of a
struct field with `ast::VisibilityKind::Inherited` is private to the
module it's defined in, whereas the visibility of an *enum* field with
`ast::VisibilityKind::Inherited` is the visibility of the enum it
belongs to.
If we try to capture the `Vec<u8>` in `Option<Vec<u8>>`, we'll
need to capture a `>` token which was 'unglued' from a `>>` token.
The processing of unglueing a token for parsing purposes bypasses the
usual capturing infrastructure, so we currently lose the trailing `>`.
As a result, we fall back to the reparsed `TokenStream`, causing us to
lose spans.
This commit makes token capturing keep track of a trailing 'unglued'
token. Note that we don't need to care about unglueing except at the end
of the captured tokens - if we capture both the first and second unglued
tokens, then we'll end up capturing the full 'glued' token, which
already works correctly.
Fixes: #79569Fixes: #79566Fixes: #79565
For the first issue (#79569), I got hit a `debug_assert!()` before
encountering the reported error message (because I have `debug = true`
enabled in my config.toml).
The assertion showed me that some `SwitchInt`s can have more than one
target pointing to the same `BasicBlock`.
I had thought that was invalid, but since it seems to be possible, I'm
allowing this now.
I added a new test for this.
----
In the last two cases above, both tests (intentionally) fail to compile,
but the `InstrumentCoverage` pass is invoked anyway.
The MIR starts with an `Unreachable` `BasicBlock`, which I hadn't
encountered before. (I had assumed the `InstrumentCoverage` pass
would only be invoked with MIRs from successful compilations.)
I don't have test infrastructure set up to test coverage on files that
fail to compile, so I didn't add a new test.
Capture precise paths in THIR and MIR
This PR allows THIR and MIR to use the result of the new capture analysis to actually capture precise paths
To achieve we:
- Writeback min capture results to TypeckResults
- Move handling upvars to PlaceBuilder in mir_build
- Lower precise paths in THIR build by reading min_captures
- Search for ancestors in min_capture when trying to build a MIR place which starts off of an upvar
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/10
Partly implements: rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#18
Work that remains (not in this PR):
- [ ] [Known bugs when feature gate is enabled](https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/projects/1?card_filter_query=label%3Abug)
- [ ] Use min_capure_map for
- [ ] Liveness analysis
- [ ] rustc_mir/interpret/validity.rs
- [ ] regionck
- [ ] rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#8
- [ ] remove closure_captures and upvar_capture_map
r? `@ghost`
Apply `doc(cfg)` from parent items while collecting trait impls
Because trait impls bypass the standard `clean` hierarchy they do not participate in the `propagate_doc_cfg` pass, so instead we need to pre-collect all possible `doc(cfg)` attributes that will apply to them when cleaning.
fixes#79201
CTFE: tweak abort-on-uninhabited message
Having an "aborted execution:" makes it more consistent with the `Abort` terminator saying "the program aborted execution". Right now, at least one of the two errors will look weird in Miri.
r? `@oli-obk`
Use `def_path_hash_to_def_id` when re-using a `RawDefId`
Fixes#79890
Previously, we just copied a `RawDefId` from the 'old' map to the 'new'
map. However, the `RawDefId` for a given `DefPathHash` may be different
in the current compilation session. Using `def_path_hash_to_def_id`
ensures that the `RawDefId` we use is valid in the current session.
Clarify the 'default is only allowed on...' error
Code like
impl Foo {
default fn foo() {}
}
will trigger the error
error: `default` is only allowed on items in `impl` definitions
--> src/lib.rs:5:5
|
5 | default fn foo() {}
| -------^^^^^^^^^
| |
| `default` because of this
but that's very confusing! I *did* put it on an item in an impl!
So this commit changes the message to
error: `default` is only allowed on items in trait impls
--> src/lib.rs:5:5
|
5 | default fn foo() {}
| -------^^^^^^^^^
| |
| `default` because of this
Fixes#79890
Previously, we just copied a `RawDefId` from the 'old' map to the 'new'
map. However, the `RawDefId` for a given `DefPathHash` may be different
in the current compilation session. Using `def_path_hash_to_def_id`
ensures that the `RawDefId` we use is valid in the current session.
rustc_codegen_ssa: use bitcasts instead of type punning for scalar transmutes.
This specifically helps with `f32` <-> `u32` (`from_bits`, `to_bits`) in Rust-GPU (`rustc_codegen_spirv`), where (AFAIK) we don't yet have enough infrastructure to turn type punning memory accesses into SSA bitcasts.
(There may be more instances, but the one I've seen myself is `f32::signum` from `num-traits` inspecting e.g. the sign bit)
Sadly I've had to make an exception for `transmute`s between pointers and non-pointers, as LLVM disallows using `bitcast` for them.
r? `@nagisa` cc `@khyperia`
Constier maybe uninit
I was playing around trying to make `[T; N]::zip()` in #79451 be `const fn`. One of the things I bumped into was `MaybeUninit::assume_init`. Is there any reason for the intrinsic `assert_inhabited<T>()` and therefore `MaybeUninit::assume_init` not being `const`?
---
I have as best as I could tried to follow the instruction in [library/core/src/intrinsics.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/core/src/intrinsics.rs#L11). I have no idea what I am doing but it seems to compile after some slight changes after the copy paste. Is this anywhere near how this should be done?
Also any ideas for name of the feature gate? I guess `const_maybe_assume_init` is quite misleading since I have added some more methods. Should I add test? If so what should be tested?
Fixes to Rust coverage
Fixes: #79725
Some macros can create a situation where `fn_sig_span` and `body_span`
map to different files.
New documentation on coverage tests incorrectly assumed multiple test
binaries could just be listed at the end of the `llvm-cov` command,
but it turns out each binary needs a `--object` prefix.
This PR fixes the bug and updates the documentation to correct that
issue. It also fixes a few other minor issues in internal implementation
comments, and adds documentation on getting coverage results for doc
tests.
Properly re-use def path hash in incremental mode
Fixes#79661
In incremental compilation mode, we update a `DefPathHash -> DefId`
mapping every time we create a `DepNode` for a foreign `DefId`.
This mapping is written out to the on-disk incremental cache, and is
read by the next compilation session to allow us to lazily decode
`DefId`s.
When we decode a `DepNode` from the current incremental cache, we need
to ensure that any previously-recorded `DefPathHash -> DefId` mapping
gets recorded in the new mapping that we write out. However, PR #74967
didn't do this in all cases, leading to us being unable to decode a
`DefPathHash` in certain circumstances.
This PR refactors some of the code around `DepNode` deserialization to
prevent this kind of mistake from happening again.
Also generate `StorageDead` in constants
r? `@eddyb`
None of this special casing is actually necessary since we started promoting within constants and statics.
We may want to keep some of it around out of perf reasons, but it's not required for user visible behaviour
somewhat related: #68622
remove this weird special case from promotion
Promotion has a special case to ignore interior mutability under some specific circumstances. The purpose of this PR is to figure out what changes if we remove that. Since `Cell::new` and friends only get promoted inside `const`/`static` initializers these days, it actually is not easy to exploit this case: you need something like
```rust
const TEST_INTERIOR_MUT: () = {
// The "0." case is already ruled out by not permitting any interior mutability in `const`.
let _val: &'static _ = &(Cell::new(1), 2).1;
};
```
I assume something like `&Some(&(Cell::new(1), 2).1)` would hit the nested case inside `validate_rvalue`... though I am not sure why that would not just trigger nested promotion, first promoting the inner reference and then the outer one?
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67534 (by simply rejecting that code^^)
r? `@oli-obk` (but for now this is not meant to be merged!)
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval`
