Greatly simplify lifetime captures in edition 2024
Remove most of the `+ Captures` and `+ '_` from the compiler, since they are now unnecessary with the new edition 2021 lifetime capture rules. Use some `+ 'tcx` and `+ 'static` rather than being overly verbose with precise capturing syntax.
Give `global_asm` a fake body to store typeck results, represent `sym fn` as a hir expr to fix `sym fn` operands with lifetimes
There are a few intertwined problems with `sym fn` operands in both inline and global asm macros.
Specifically, unlike other anon consts, they may evaluate to a type with free regions in them without actually having an item-level type annotation to give them a "proper" type. This is in contrast to named constants, which always have an item-level type annotation, or unnamed constants which are constrained by their position (e.g. a const arg in a turbofish, or a const array length).
Today, we infer the type of the operand by looking at the HIR typeck results; however, those results are region-erased, so during borrowck we ICE since we don't expect to encounter erased regions. We can't just fill this type with something like `'static`, since we may want to use real (free) regions:
```rust
fn foo<'a>() {
asm!("/* ... */", sym bar::<&'a ()>);
}
```
The first idea may be to represent `sym fn` operands using *inline* consts instead of anon consts. This makes sense, since inline consts can reference regions from the parent body (like the `'a` in the example above). However, this introduces a problem with `global_asm!`, which doesn't *have* a parent body; inline consts *must* be associated with a parent body since they are not a body owner of their own. In #116087, I attempted to fix this by using two separate `sym` operands for global and inline asm. However, this led to a lot of confusion and also some unattractive code duplication.
In this PR, I adjust the lowering of `global_asm!` so that it's lowered in a "fake" HIR body. This body contains a single expression which is `ExprKind::InlineAsm`; we don't *use* this HIR body, but it's used in typeck and borrowck so that we can properly infer and validate the the lifetimes of `sym fn` operands.
I then adjust the lowering of `sym fn` to instead be represented with a HIR expression. This is both because it's no longer necessary to represent this operand as an anon const, since it's *just* a path expression, and also more importantly to sidestep yet another ICE (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/137179), which has to do with the existing code breaking an invariant of def-id creation and anon consts. Specifically, we are not allowed to synthesize a def-id for an anon const when that anon const contains expressions with def-ids whose parent is *not* that anon const. This is somewhat related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130443#issuecomment-2445678945, which is also a place in the compiler where synthesizing anon consts leads to def-id parenting issue.
As a side-effect, this consolidates the type checking for inline and global asm, so it allows us to simplify `InlineAsmCtxt` a bit. It also allows us to delete a bit of hacky code from anon const `type_of` which was there to detect `sym fn` operands specifically. This also could be generalized to support `const` asm operands with types with lifetimes in them. Since we specifically reject these consts today, I'm not going to change the representation of those consts (but they'd just be turned into inline consts).
r? oli-obk -- mostly b/c you're patient and also understand the breadth of the code that this touches, please reassign if you don't want to review this.
Fixes#111709Fixes#96304Fixes#137179
Remove `rustc_middle::mir::tcx` module.
This is a really weird module. For example, what does `tcx` in `rustc_middle::mir::tcx::PlaceTy` mean? The answer is "not much".
The top-level module comment says:
> Methods for the various MIR types. These are intended for use after
> building is complete.
Awfully broad for a module that has a handful of impl blocks for some MIR types, none of which really relates to `TyCtxt`. `git blame` indicates the comment is ancient, from 2015, and made sense then.
This module is now vestigial. This commit removes it and moves all the code within into `rustc_middle::mir::statement`. Some specifics:
- `Place`, `PlaceRef`, `Rvalue`, `Operand`, `BorrowKind`: they all have `impl` blocks in both the `tcx` and `statement` modules. The commit merges the former into the latter.
- `BinOp`, `UnOp`: they only have `impl` blocks in `tcx`. The commit moves these into `statement`.
- `PlaceTy`, `RvalueInitializationState`: they are defined in `tcx`. This commit moves them into `statement` *and* makes them available in `mir::*`, like many other MIR types.
r? `@tmandry`
This is a really weird module. For example, what does `tcx` in
`rustc_middle::mir::tcx::PlaceTy` mean? The answer is "not much".
The top-level module comment says:
> Methods for the various MIR types. These are intended for use after
> building is complete.
Awfully broad for a module that has a handful of impl blocks for some
MIR types, none of which really relates to `TyCtxt`. `git blame`
indicates the comment is ancient, from 2015, and made sense then.
This module is now vestigial. This commit removes it and moves all the
code within into `rustc_middle::mir::statement`. Some specifics:
- `Place`, `PlaceRef`, `Rvalue`, `Operand`, `BorrowKind`: they all have `impl`
blocks in both the `tcx` and `statement` modules. The commit merges
the former into the latter.
- `BinOp`, `UnOp`: they only have `impl` blocks in `tcx`. The commit
moves these into `statement`.
- `PlaceTy`, `RvalueInitializationState`: they are defined in `tcx`.
This commit moves them into `statement` *and* makes them available in
`mir::*`, like many other MIR types.
Continuing the work started in #136466.
Every method gains a `hir_` prefix, though for the ones that already
have a `par_` or `try_par_` prefix I added the `hir_` after that.
Simplify some code for lowering THIR patterns
I've been playing around with some radically different ways of storing THIR patterns, and while those experiments haven't yet produced a clear win, I have noticed various smaller things in the existing code that can be made a bit nicer.
Some of the more significant changes:
- With a little bit of extra effort (and thoughtful use of Arc), we can completely remove an entire layer of `'pat` lifetimes from the intermediate data structures used for match lowering.
- In several places, lists of THIR patterns were being double-boxed for no apparent reason.
This does mean that we have to resolve the list of arm IDs twice, but it's
unclear whether that even matters, whereas the cleaner signature is a nice
improvement.
Rename `tcx.ensure()` to `tcx.ensure_ok()`, and improve the associated docs
This is all based on my archaeology for https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/182449-t-compiler.2Fhelp/topic/.60TyCtxtEnsure.60.
The main renamings are:
- `tcx.ensure()` → `tcx.ensure_ok()`
- `tcx.ensure_with_value()` → `tcx.ensure_done()`
- Query modifier `ensure_forwards_result_if_red` → `return_result_from_ensure_ok`
Hopefully these new names are a better fit for the *actual* function and purpose of these query call modes.
Implement MIR lowering for unsafe binders
This is the final bit of the unsafe binders puzzle. It implements MIR, CTFE, and codegen for unsafe binders, and enforces that (for now) they are `Copy`. Later on, I'll introduce a new trait that relaxes this requirement to being "is `Copy` or `ManuallyDrop<T>`" which more closely models how we treat union fields.
Namely, wrapping unsafe binders is now `Rvalue::WrapUnsafeBinder`, which acts much like an `Rvalue::Aggregate`. Unwrapping unsafe binders are implemented as a MIR projection `ProjectionElem::UnwrapUnsafeBinder`, which acts much like `ProjectionElem::Field`.
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130516
Deduplicate operand creation between scalars, non-scalars and string patterns
just something that felt duplicated and would make pattern type handling a bit more roundabout.
Fix ICE-133117: multiple never-pattern arm doesn't have false_edge_start_block
Fixes#133117 , and close fixes#133063 , fixes#130779
In order to fix ICE-133117, at first I needed to tackle to ICE-133063 (this fixed 130779 as well).
### ICE-133063 and ICE-130779
This ICE is caused by those steps:
1. An arm has or-pattern, and all of the sub-candidates are never-pattern
2. In that case, all sub-candidates are removed in remove_never_subcandidates(). So the arm (candidate) has no sub-candidate.
3. In the current implementation, if there is no sub-candidate, the function assigns `pre_binding_block` into the candidate ([here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/compiler/rustc_mir_build/src/builder/matches/mod.rs#L2002-L2004)). However, otherwise_block should be assigned to the candidate as well, because the otherwise_block is unwrapped in multiple place (like in lower_match_tree()). As a result, it causes the panic.
I simply added the same block as pre_binding_block into otherwise_block, but I'm wondering if there is a better block to assign to otherwise_block (is it ok to assign the same block into pre_binding and otherwise?)
### ICE-133117
This is caused by those steps:
1. There are two arms, both are or-pattern and each has one match-pair (in the test code, both are `(!|!)`), and the second arm has a guard.
2. In match_candidate() for the first arm, it expands the second arm’s sub-candidates as well ([here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/compiler/rustc_mir_build/src/builder/matches/mod.rs#L1800-L1805)). As a result, the root candidate of the second arm is not evaluated/modified in match_candidate(). So a false_edge_start_block is not assigned to the candidate.
3. merge_trivial_subcandidates() is called against the candidate for the second arm. It just returns immediately because the candidate has a guard. So a flase_edge_start_block is not assigned to the candidate also in this function.
4. remove_never_subcandidates() is called against the candidate. Since all sub-candidates are never-pattern. they are removed.
5. In lower_match_tree(), since there is no sub-candidate for the candidate, the candidate itself is evaluated in visit_leave_rev ([here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/compiler/rustc_mir_build/src/builder/matches/mod.rs#L1532)). Because the candidate has no false_edge_start_block, it causes the panic.
So I modified the order of if blocks in merge_trivial_subcandidates() to assign a false_edge_start_block if the candidate doesn't have.
The candidate shouldn't have false_edge_start_block if it has sub candidates.
In remove_never_subcandidates(), the false_edge_start_block from the first sub candidte is assigned to a value and the value is later used if all sub candidates are removed and candidate doesn't have false_edge_start_block.
In merge_trivial_subcandidates, I leave the if block which assign a false_edge_start_block into the candidate as before I put this commit since compile panics.
Signed-off-by: Shunpoco <tkngsnsk313320@gmail.com>
If all subcandidates have never-pattern, we should assign false_edge_start_block to the parent candidate
if it doesn't have. merge_trivial_subcandidates does so, but if the candidate has guard it returns before the assignment.
Signed-off-by: Shunpoco <tkngsnsk313320@gmail.com>
If all subcandidates have never-pattern, the parent candidate should have otherwise_block
because some methods expect the candidate has the block.
Signed-off-by: Shunpoco <tkngsnsk313320@gmail.com>
