Emit a hard error when a panic occurs during const-eval
Previous, a panic during const evaluation would go through the
`const_err` lint. This PR ensures that such a panic always causes
compilation to fail.
Fix span of redundant generic arguments
Fixes#71563
Above issue is about lifetime arguments, but generic arguments also have same problem.
This PR fixes both help messages.
Use correct edition when parsing `:pat` matchers
As described in issue #85708, we currently do not properly decode
`SyntaxContext::root()` and `ExpnId::root()` from foreign crates. As a
result, when we decode a span from a foreign crate with
`SyntaxContext::root()`, we end up up considering it to have the edition
of the *current* crate, instead of the foreign crate where it was
originally created.
A full fix for this issue will be a fairly significant undertaking.
Fortunately, it's possible to implement a partial fix, which gives us
the correct edition-dependent behavior for `:pat` matchers when the
macro is loaded from another crate. Since we have the edition of the
macro's defining crate available, we can 'recover' from seeing a
`SyntaxContext::root()` and use the edition of the macro's defining
crate.
Any solution to issue #85708 must reproduce the behavior of this
targeted fix - properly preserving a foreign `SyntaxContext::root()`
means (among other things) preserving its edition, which by definition
is the edition of the foreign crate itself. Therefore, this fix moves us
closer to the correct overall solution, and does not expose any new
incorrect behavior to macros.
Make `Step` trait safe to implement
This PR makes a few modifications to the `Step` trait that I believe better position it for stabilization in the short term. In particular,
1. `unsafe trait TrustedStep` is introduced, indicating that the implementation of `Step` for a given type upholds all stated invariants (which have remained unchanged). This is gated behind a new `trusted_step` feature, as stabilization is realistically blocked on min_specialization.
2. The `Step` trait is internally specialized on the `TrustedStep` trait, which avoids a serious performance regression.
3. `TrustedLen` is implemented for `T: TrustedStep` as the latter's invariants subsume the former's.
4. The `Step` trait is no longer `unsafe`, as the invariants must not be relied upon by unsafe code (unless the type implements `TrustedStep`).
5. `TrustedStep` is implemented for all types that implement `Step` in the standard library and compiler.
6. The `step_trait_ext` feature is merged into the `step_trait` feature. I was unable to find any reasoning for the features being split; the `_unchecked` methods need not necessarily be stabilized at the same time, but I think it is useful to have them under the same feature flag.
All existing implementations of `Step` will be broken, as it is not possible to `unsafe impl` a safe trait. Given this trait only exists on nightly, I feel this breakage is acceptable. The blanket `impl<T: Step> TrustedLen for T` will likely cause some minor breakage, but this should be covered by the equivalent impl for `TrustedStep`.
Hopefully these changes are sufficient to place `Step` in decent position for stabilization, which would allow user-defined types to be used with `a..b` syntax.
As described in issue #85708, we currently do not properly decode
`SyntaxContext::root()` and `ExpnId::root()` from foreign crates. As a
result, when we decode a span from a foreign crate with
`SyntaxContext::root()`, we end up up considering it to have the edition
of the *current* crate, instead of the foreign crate where it was
originally created.
A full fix for this issue will be a fairly significant undertaking.
Fortunately, it's possible to implement a partial fix, which gives us
the correct edition-dependent behavior for `:pat` matchers when the
macro is loaded from another crate. Since we have the edition of the
macro's defining crate available, we can 'recover' from seeing a
`SyntaxContext::root()` and use the edition of the macro's defining
crate.
Any solution to issue #85708 must reproduce the behavior of this
targeted fix - properly preserving a foreign `SyntaxContext::root()`
means (among other things) preserving its edition, which by definition
is the edition of the foreign crate itself. Therefore, this fix moves us
closer to the correct overall solution, and does not expose any new
incorrect behavior to macros.
A bit more polish on const eval errors
This PR adds a bit more polish to the const eval errors:
- a slight improvement to the PME messages from #85633: I mentioned there that the erroneous item's paths were dependent on the environment, and could be displayed fully qualified or not. This can obscure the items when they come from a dependency. This PR uses the pretty-printing code ensuring the items' paths are not trimmed.
- whenever there are generics involved in an item where const evaluation errors out, the error message now displays the instance and its const arguments, so that we can see which instantiated item and compile-time values lead to the error.
So we get this slight improvement for our beloved `stdarch` example, on nightly:
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
8 | assert!(IMM >= MIN && IMM <= MAX, "IMM value not in expected range");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the evaluated program panicked at 'IMM value not in expected range', /rustc/9111b8ae9793f18179a1336417618fc07a9cac85/library/core/src/../../stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
```
to this PR's:
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of `core::core_arch::macros::ValidateConstImm::<51_i32, 0_i32, 15_i32>::VALID` failed
--> ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
8 | assert!(IMM >= MIN && IMM <= MAX, "IMM value not in expected range");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the evaluated program panicked at 'IMM value not in expected range', ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
```
with this PR.
Of course this is an idea from Oli, so maybe r? `@oli-obk` if they have the time.
Fix incorrect suggestions for E0605
Fixes#84598. Here is a simplified version of the problem presented in issue #84598:
```Rust
#![allow(unused_variables)]
#![allow(dead_code)]
trait T { fn t(&self) -> i32; }
unsafe fn foo(t: *mut dyn T) {
(t as &dyn T).t();
}
fn main() {}
```
The current output is:
```
error[E0605]: non-primitive cast: `*mut (dyn T + 'static)` as `&dyn T`
--> src/main.rs:7:5
|
7 | (t as &dyn T).t();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ invalid cast
|
help: borrow the value for the cast to be valid
|
7 | (&t as &dyn T).t();
| ^
```
This is incorrect, though: The cast will _not_ be valid when writing `&t` instead of `t`:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `*mut (dyn T + 'static): T` is not satisfied
--> t4.rs:7:6
|
7 | (&t as &dyn T).t();
| ^^ the trait `T` is not implemented for `*mut (dyn T + 'static)`
|
= note: required for the cast to the object type `dyn T`
```
The correct suggestion is `&*t`, which I have implemented in this pull request. Of course, this suggestion will always require an unsafe block, but arguably, that's what the user really wants if they're trying to cast a pointer to a reference.
In any case, claiming that the cast will be valid after implementing the suggestion is overly optimistic, as the coercion logic doesn't seem to resolve all nested obligations, i.e. the cast may still be invalid after implementing the suggestion. I have therefore rephrased the suggestion slightly ("consider borrowing the value" instead of "borrow the value for the cast to be valid").
Additionally, I have fixed another incorrect suggestion not mentioned in #84598, which relates to casting immutable references to mutable ones:
```rust
fn main() {
let mut x = 0;
let m = &x as &mut i32;
}
```
currently leads to
```
error[E0605]: non-primitive cast: `&i32` as `&mut i32`
--> t5.rs:3:13
|
3 | let m = &x as &mut i32;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ invalid cast
|
help: borrow the value for the cast to be valid
|
3 | let m = &mut &x as &mut i32;
| ^^^^
```
which is obviously incorrect:
```
error[E0596]: cannot borrow data in a `&` reference as mutable
--> t5.rs:3:13
|
3 | let m = &mut &x as &mut i32;
| ^^^^^^^ cannot borrow as mutable
```
I've changed the suggestion to a note explaining the problem:
```
error[E0605]: non-primitive cast: `&i32` as `&mut i32`
--> t5.rs:3:13
|
3 | let m = &x as &mut i32;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ invalid cast
|
note: this reference is immutable
--> t5.rs:3:13
|
3 | let m = &x as &mut i32;
| ^^
note: trying to cast to a mutable reference type
--> t5.rs:3:19
|
3 | let m = &x as &mut i32;
| ^^^^^^^^
```
In this example, it would have been even nicer to suggest replacing `&x` with `&mut x`, but this would be much more complex because we would have to take apart the expression to be cast (currently, we only look at its type), and `&x` could be stored in a variable, where such a suggestion would not even be directly applicable:
```rust
fn main() {
let mut x = 0;
let r = &x;
let m = r as &mut i32;
}
```
My solution covers this case, too.
readd capture disjoint fields gate
This readds a feature gate guard that was added in PR #83521. (Basically, there were unintended consequences to the code exposed by removing the feature gate guard.)
The root bug still remains to be resolved, as discussed in issue #85561. This is just a band-aid suitable for a beta backport.
Cc issue #85435
Note that the latter issue is unfixed until we backport this (or another fix) to 1.53 beta
stabilize member constraints
Stabilizes the use of "member constraints" in solving `impl Trait` bindings. This is a step towards stabilizing a "MVP" of "named impl Trait".
# Member constraint stabilization report
| Info | |
| --- | --- |
| Tracking issue | [rust-lang/rust#61997](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61997) |
| Implementation history | [rust-lang/rust#61775] |
| rustc-dev-guide coverage | [link](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/borrow_check/region_inference/member_constraints.html) |
| Complications | [rust-lang/rust#61773] |
[rust-lang/rust#61775]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61775
[rust-lang/rust#61773]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61773
## Background
Member constraints are an extension to our region solver that was introduced to make async fn region solving tractable. There are used in situations like the following:
```rust
fn foo<'a, 'b>(...) -> impl Trait<'a, 'b> { .. }
```
The problem here is that every region R in the hidden type must be equal to *either* `'a` *or* `'b` (or `'static`). This cannot be expressed simply via 'outlives constriants' like `R: 'a`. Therefore, we introduce a 'member constraint' `R member of ['a, 'b]`.
These constraints were introduced in [rust-lang/rust#61775]. At the time, we kept them feature gated and used them only for `impl Trait` return types that are derived from `async fn`. The intention, however, was always to support them in other contexts once we had time to gain more experience with them.
**In the time since their introduction, we have encountered no surprises or bugs due to these member constraints.** They are tested extensively as part of every async function that involves multiple unrelated lifetimes in its arguments.
## Tests
The behavior of member constraints is covered by the following tests:
* [`src/test/ui/async-await/multiple-lifetimes`](20e032e650/src/test/ui/async-await/multiple-lifetimes) -- tests using the async await, which are mostly already stabilized
* [`src/test/ui/impl-trait/multiple-lifetimes.rs`](20e032e650/src/test/ui/impl-trait/multiple-lifetimes.rs)
* [`src/test/ui/impl-trait/multiple-lifetimes/ordinary-bounds-unsuited.rs`](20e032e650/src/test/ui/impl-trait/multiple-lifetimes/ordinary-bounds-unsuited.rs)
* [`src/test/ui/async-await/multiple-lifetimes/ret-impl-trait-fg.rs`](20e032e650/src/test/ui/async-await/multiple-lifetimes/ret-impl-trait-fg.rs)
* [`src/test/ui/async-await/multiple-lifetimes/ret-impl-trait-one.rs`](20e032e650/src/test/ui/async-await/multiple-lifetimes/ret-impl-trait-one.rs)
These tests cover a number of scenarios:
* `-> implTrait<'a, 'b>` with unrelated lifetimes `'a` and `'b`, as described above
* `async fn` that returns an `impl Trait` like the previous case, which desugars to a kind of "nested" impl trait like `impl Future<Output = impl Trait<'a, 'b>>`
## Potential concerns
There is a potential interaction with `impl Trait` on local variables, described in [rust-lang/rust#61773]. The challenge is that if you have a program like:
```rust=
trait Foo<'_> { }
impl Foo<'_> for &u32 { }
fn bar() {
let x: impl Foo<'_> = &44; // let's call the region variable for `'_` `'1`
}
```
then we would wind up with `'0 member of ['1, 'static]`, where `'0` is the region variable in the hidden type (`&'0 u32`) and `'1` is the region variable in the bounds `Foo<'1>`. This is tricky because both `'0` and `'1` are being inferred -- so making them equal may have other repercussions.
That said, `impl Trait` in bindings are not stable, and the implementation is pretty far from stabilization. Moreover, the difficulty highlighted here is not due to the presence of member constraints -- it's inherent to the design of the language. In other words, stabilizing member constraints does not actually cause us to accept anything that would make this problem any harder.
So I don't see this as a blocker to stabilization of member constraints; it is potentially a blocker to stablization of `impl trait` in let bindings.
E0599 suggestions and elision of generic argument if no canditate is found
fixes#81576
changes: In error E0599 (method not found) generic argument are eluded if the method was not found anywhere. If the method was found in another inherent implementation suggest that it was found elsewhere.
Example
```rust
struct Wrapper<T>(T);
struct Wrapper2<T> {
x: T,
}
impl Wrapper2<i8> {
fn method(&self) {}
}
fn main() {
let wrapper = Wrapper(i32);
wrapper.method();
let wrapper2 = Wrapper2{x: i32};
wrapper2.method();
}
```
```
Error[E0599]: no method named `method` found for struct `Wrapper<_>` in the current scope
....
error[E0599]: no method named `method` found for struct `Wrapper2<i32>` in the current scope
...
= note: The method was found for Wrapper2<i8>.
```
I am not very happy with the ```no method named `test` found for struct `Vec<_, _>` in the current scope```. I think it might be better to show only one generic argument `Vec<_>` if there is a default one. But I haven't yet found a way to do that,
While stdlib implementations of the unchecked methods require unchecked
math, there is no reason to gate it behind this for external users. The
reasoning for a separate `step_trait_ext` feature is unclear, and as
such has been merged as well.
fix `matches!` and `assert_matches!` on edition 2021
Previously this code failed to compile on edition 2021. [(Playground)](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=53960f2f051f641777b9e458da747707)
```rust
fn main() {
matches!((), ());
}
```
```
Compiling playground v0.0.1 (/playground)
error: `$pattern:pat` may be followed by `|`, which is not allowed for `pat` fragments
|
= note: allowed there are: `=>`, `,`, `=`, `if` or `in`
error: aborting due to previous error
error: could not compile `playground`
To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.
```
Post-monomorphization errors traces MVP
This PR works towards better diagnostics for the errors encountered in #85155 and similar.
We can encounter post-monomorphization errors (PMEs) when collecting mono items. The current diagnostics are confusing for these cases when they happen in a dependency (but are acceptable when they happen in the local crate).
These kinds of errors will be more likely now that `stdarch` uses const generics for its intrinsics' immediate arguments, and validates these const arguments with a mechanism that triggers such PMEs.
(Not to mention that the errors happen during codegen, so only when building code that actually uses these code paths. Check builds don't trigger them, neither does unused code)
So in this PR, we detect these kinds of errors during the mono item graph walk: if any error happens while collecting a node or its neighbors, we print a diagnostic about the current collection step, so that the user has at least some context of which erroneous code and dependency triggered the error.
The diagnostics for issue #85155 now have this note showing the source of the erroneous const argument:
```
note: the above error was encountered while instantiating `fn std::arch::x86_64::_mm_blend_ps::<51_i32>`
--> issue-85155.rs:11:24
|
11 | let _blended = _mm_blend_ps(a, b, 0x33);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Note that #85155 is a reduced version of a case happening in the wild, to indirect users of the `rustfft` crate, as seen in https://github.com/ejmahler/RustFFT/issues/74. The crate had a few of these out-of-range immediates. Here's how the diagnostics in this PR would have looked on one of its examples before it was fixed:
<details>
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
8 | assert!(IMM >= MIN && IMM <= MAX, "IMM value not in expected range");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the evaluated program panicked at 'IMM value not in expected range', ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
note: the above error was encountered while instantiating `fn _mm_blend_ps::<51_i32>`
--> /tmp/RustFFT/src/avx/avx_vector.rs:1314:23
|
1314 | let blended = _mm_blend_ps(rows[0], rows[2], 0x33);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: the above error was encountered while instantiating `fn _mm_permute_pd::<5_i32>`
--> /tmp/RustFFT/src/avx/avx_vector.rs:1859:9
|
1859 | _mm_permute_pd(self, 0x05)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: the above error was encountered while instantiating `fn _mm_permute_pd::<15_i32>`
--> /tmp/RustFFT/src/avx/avx_vector.rs:1863:32
|
1863 | (_mm_movedup_pd(self), _mm_permute_pd(self, 0x0F))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0080`.
error: could not compile `rustfft`
To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.
```
</details>
I've developed and discussed this with them, so maybe r? `@oli-obk` -- but feel free to redirect to someone else of course.
(I'm not sure we can say that this PR definitely closes issue 85155, as it's still unclear exactly which diagnostics and information would be interesting to report in such cases -- and we've discussed printing backtraces before. I have prototypes of some complete and therefore noisy backtraces I showed Oli, but we decided to not include them in this PR for now)
Disallow shadowing const parameters
This pull request fixes#85348. Trying to shadow a `const` parameter as follows:
```rust
fn foo<const N: i32>() {
let N @ _ = 0;
}
```
currently causes an ICE. With my changes, I get:
```
error[E0530]: let bindings cannot shadow const parameters
--> test.rs:2:9
|
1 | fn foo<const N: i32>() {
| - the const parameter `N` is defined here
2 | let N @ _ = 0;
| ^ cannot be named the same as a const parameter
error: aborting due to previous error
```
This is the same error you get when trying to shadow a constant:
```rust
const N: i32 = 0;
let N @ _ = 0;
```
```
error[E0530]: let bindings cannot shadow constants
--> src/lib.rs:3:5
|
2 | const N: i32 = 0;
| ----------------- the constant `N` is defined here
3 | let N @ _ = 0;
| ^ cannot be named the same as a constant
error: aborting due to previous error
```
The reason for disallowing shadowing in both cases is described [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/33118#issuecomment-233962221) (the comment there only talks about constants, but the same reasoning applies to `const` parameters).
This test reproduces post-monomorphization errors one can encounter
when using incorrect immediate arguments to some of the stdarch
intrinsics using const generics.
deal with `const_evaluatable_checked` in `ConstEquate`
Failing to evaluate two constants which do not contain inference variables should not result in ambiguity.
Make building THIR a stealable query
This PR creates a stealable `thir_body` query so that we can build the THIR only once for THIR unsafeck and MIR build.
Blocked on #83842.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Extend `rustc_on_implemented` to improve more `?` error messages
`_Self` could match the generic definition; this adds that functionality for matching the generic definition of type parameters too.
Your advice welcome on the wording of all these messages, and which things belong in the message/label/note.
r? `@estebank`
