Fix error counting
Count duplicate errors for `track_errors` and other error counting checks.
Add FIXMEs to make it clear that we should be moving away from this kind of logic.
Closes#61663
Refactor miri pointer checks
Centralize bounds, alignment and NULL checking for memory accesses in one function: `memory.check_ptr_access`. That function also takes care of converting a `Scalar` to a `Pointer`, should that be needed. Not all accesses need that though: if the access has size 0, `None` is returned. Everyone accessing memory based on a `Scalar` should use this method to get the `Pointer` they need.
All operations on the `Allocation` work on `Pointer` inputs and expect all the checks to have happened (and will ICE if the bounds are violated). The operations on `Memory` work on `Scalar` inputs and do the checks themselves.
The only other public method to check pointers is `memory.ptr_may_be_null`, which is needed in a few places. No need for `check_align` or similar methods. That makes the public API surface much easier to use and harder to mis-use.
This should be largely no-functional-change, except that ZST accesses to a "true" pointer that is dangling or out-of-bounds are now considered UB. This is to be conservative wrt. whatever LLVM might be doing.
While I am at it, this also removes the assumption that the vtable part of a `dyn Trait`-fat-pointer is a `Pointer` (as opposed to a pointer cast to an integer, stored as raw bits).
r? @oli-obk
compiletest: Introduce `// {check,build,run}-pass` pass modes
Pass UI tests now have three modes
```
// check-pass
// build-pass
// run-pass
```
mirroring equivalent well-known `cargo` commands.
`// check-pass` will compile the test skipping codegen (which is expensive and isn't supposed to fail in most cases).
`// build-pass` will compile and link the test without running it.
`// run-pass` will compile, link and run the test.
Tests without a "pass" annotation are still considered "fail" tests.
Most UI tests would probably want to switch to `check-pass`.
Tests validating codegen would probably want to run the generated code as well and use `run-pass`.
`build-pass` should probably be rare (linking tests?).
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61755 will provide a way to run the tests with any mode, e.g. bump `check-pass` tests to `run-pass` to satisfy especially suspicious people, and be able to make sure that codegen doesn't breaks in some entirely unexpected way.
Tests marked with any mode are expected to pass with any other mode, if that's not the case for some legitimate reason, then the test should be made a "fail" test rather than a "pass" test.
Perhaps some secondary CI can verify this invariant, but that's not super urgent.
`// compile-pass` still works and is equivalent to `build-pass`.
Why is `// compile-pass` bad - 1) it gives an impression that the test is only compiled, but not linked, 2) it doesn't mirror a cargo command.
It can be removed some time in the future in a separate PR.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61712
[let_chains, 2/6] Introduce `Let(..)` in AST, remove IfLet + WhileLet and parse let chains
Here we remove `ast::ExprKind::{IfLet, WhileLet}` and introduce `ast::ExprKind::Let`.
Moreover, we also:
+ connect the parsing logic for let chains
+ introduce the feature gate
+ rewire HIR lowering a bit.
However, this does not connect the new syntax to semantics in HIR.
That will be the subject of a subsequent PR.
Per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53667#issuecomment-471583239.
Next step after https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/59288.
cc @Manishearth re. Clippy.
r? @oli-obk
Fix meta-variable binding errors in macros
The errors are either:
- The meta-variable used in the right-hand side is not bound (or defined) in the
left-hand side.
- The meta-variable used in the right-hand side does not repeat with the same
kleene operator as its binder in the left-hand side. Either it does not repeat
enough, or it uses a different operator somewhere.
This change should have no semantic impact.
Found by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/62008
The errors are either:
- The meta-variable used in the right-hand side is not bound (or defined) in the
left-hand side.
- The meta-variable used in the right-hand side does not repeat with the same
kleene operator as its binder in the left-hand side. Either it does not repeat
enough, or it uses a different operator somewhere.
This change should have no semantic impact.
Kill conflicting borrows of places with projections.
Resolves#62007.
Due to a bug, the previous version of this check did not actually kill all conflicting borrows unless the borrowed place had no projections. Specifically, `sets.on_entry` will always be empty when `statement_effect` is called. It does not contain the set of borrows which are live at this point in the program.
@pnkfelix describes why this was not caught before in #62007, and created an example where the current borrow checker failed unnecessarily. This PR adds their example as a test, but they will likely want to add some additional ones.
r? @pnkfelix
Changed the error message to more clearly explain what is allowed
This is in regard to #61634. I changed the language to make it more clear what is allowed.
