Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681.
Support default fields in enum struct variant
Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition:
```rust
pub enum Bar {
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant
```rust
Bar::Foo { .. }
```
`#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants.
Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields
```rust
pub enum Bar {
#[default]
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build.
Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled).
Properly instantiate MIR const
The following works:
```rust
struct S<A> {
a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(),
}
S::<i32> { .. }
```
Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval
We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users'
getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error
that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to
*always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted.
This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the
expression relies on a const parameter.
Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`:
- Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields.
- Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values.
- Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
Also this generates an error when `repr` is used on a trait method and
the `fn_align` feature is not enabled. Looks like that was missed here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110313/files
Which first enables the align attribute on trait methods.
Get rid of HIR const checker
As far as I can tell, the HIR const checker was implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66170 because we were not able to issue useful const error messages in the MIR const checker.
This seems to have changed in the last 5 years, probably due to work like #90532. I've tweaked the diagnostics slightly and think the error messages have gotten *better* in fact.
Thus I think the HIR const checker has reached the end of its usefulness, and we can retire it.
cc `@RalfJung`
Minimally constify `Add`
* This PR removes the requirement for `impl const` to have a const stability attribute. cc ``@RalfJung`` I believe you mentioned that it would make much more sense to require `const_trait`s to have const stability instead. I agree with that sentiment but I don't think that is _required_ for a small scale experimentation like this PR. https://github.com/rust-lang/project-const-traits/issues/16 should definitely be prioritized in the future, but removing the impl check should be good for now as all callers need `const_trait_impl` enabled for any const impl to work.
* This PR is intentionally minimal as constifying other traits can become more complicated (`PartialEq`, for example, would run into requiring implementing it for `str` as that is used in matches, which runs into the implementation for slice equality which uses specialization)
Per the reasons above, anyone who is interested in making traits `const` in the standard library are **strongly encouraged** to reach out to us on the [Zulip channel](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/419616-t-compiler.2Fproject-const-traits) before proceeding with the work.
cc ``@rust-lang/project-const-traits``
I believe there is prior approval from libs that we can experiment, so
r? project-const-traits
Allow disabling ASan instrumentation for globals
AddressSanitizer adds instrumentation to global variables unless the [`no_sanitize_address`](https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#global-attributes) attribute is set on them.
This commit extends the existing `#[no_sanitize(address)]` attribute to set this; previously it only had the desired effect on functions.
(cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/39699)
Use attributes for `dangling_pointers_from_temporaries` lint
Checking for dangling pointers by function name isn't ideal, and leaves out certain pointer-returning methods that don't follow the `as_ptr` naming convention. Using an attribute for this lint cleans things up and allows more thorough coverage of other methods, such as `UnsafeCell::get()`.
Merge `-Zhir-stats` into `-Zinput-stats`
Currently `-Z hir-stats` prints the size and count of various kinds of nodes, and the total size of all the nodes it counted, but not the total count of nodes. So, before this PR:
```
$ git clone https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep
$ cd ripgrep
$ cargo +nightly rustc -- -Z hir-stats
ast-stats-1 PRE EXPANSION AST STATS
ast-stats-1 Name Accumulated Size Count Item Size
ast-stats-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------
ast-stats-1 ...
ast-stats-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------
ast-stats-1 Total 93_576
ast-stats-1
ast-stats-2 POST EXPANSION AST STATS
ast-stats-2 Name Accumulated Size Count Item Size
ast-stats-2 ----------------------------------------------------------------
ast-stats-2 ...
ast-stats-2 ----------------------------------------------------------------
ast-stats-2 Total 2_430_648
ast-stats-2
hir-stats HIR STATS
hir-stats Name Accumulated Size Count Item Size
hir-stats ----------------------------------------------------------------
hir-stats ...
hir-stats ----------------------------------------------------------------
hir-stats Total 3_678_512
hir-stats
```
For consistency, this PR adds a total for the count as well:
```
$ cargo +stage1 rustc -- -Z hir-stats
ast-stats-1 PRE EXPANSION AST STATS
ast-stats-1 Name Accumulated Size Count Item Size
ast-stats-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------
ast-stats-1 ...
ast-stats-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------
ast-stats-1 Total 93_576 1_877
ast-stats-1
ast-stats-2 POST EXPANSION AST STATS
ast-stats-2 Name Accumulated Size Count Item Size
ast-stats-2 ----------------------------------------------------------------
ast-stats-2 ...
ast-stats-2 ----------------------------------------------------------------
ast-stats-2 Total 2_430_648 48_625
ast-stats-2
hir-stats HIR STATS
hir-stats Name Accumulated Size Count Item Size
hir-stats ----------------------------------------------------------------
hir-stats ...
hir-stats ----------------------------------------------------------------
hir-stats Total 3_678_512 73_418
hir-stats
```
I wasn't sure if I was supposed to update `tests/ui/stats/hir-stats.stderr` to reflect this. I ran it locally, thinking it would fail, but it didn't:
```
$ ./x test tests/ui/stats
...
running 2 tests
i.
test result: ok. 1 passed; 0 failed; 1 ignored; 0 measured; 17949 filtered out
```
Also: is there a reason `-Z hir-stats` and `-Z input-stats` both exist? The former seems like it should completely supercede the latter. But strangely, the two give very different numbers for node counts:
```
$ cargo +nightly rustc -- -Z input-stats
...
Lines of code: 483
Pre-expansion node count: 2386
Post-expansion node count: 63844
```
That's a 30% difference in this case. Is it intentional that these numbers are so different? I see comments for both saying that they are merely approximations and should not be expected to be correct:
bd0826a452/compiler/rustc_ast_passes/src/node_count.rs (L1)bd0826a452/compiler/rustc_passes/src/hir_stats.rs (L1-L3)
the behavior of the type system not only depends on the current
assumptions, but also the currentnphase of the compiler. This is
mostly necessary as we need to decide whether and how to reveal
opaque types. We track this via the `TypingMode`.
Proper support for cross-crate recursive const stability checks
~~Stacked on top of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132492; only the last three commits are new.~~
In a crate without `staged_api` but with `-Zforce-unstable-if-unmarked`, we now subject all functions marked with `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` to recursive const stability checks. We require an opt-in so that by default, a crate can be built with `-Zforce-unstable-if-unmarked` and use nightly features as usual. This property is recorded in the crate metadata so when a `staged_api` crate calls such a function, it sees the `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` and allows it to be exposed on stable. This, finally, will let us expose `const fn` from hashbrown on stable.
The second commit makes const stability more like regular stability: via `check_missing_const_stability`, we ensure that all publicly reachable functions have a const stability attribute -- both in `staged_api` crates and `-Zforce-unstable-if-unmarked` crates. To achieve this, we move around the stability computation so that const stability is computed after regular stability is done. This lets us access the final result of the regular stability computation, which we use so that `const fn` can inherit the regular stability (but only if that is "unstable"). Fortunately, this lets us get rid of an `Option` in `ConstStability`.
This is the last PR that I have planned in this series.
r? `@compiler-errors`
AddressSanitizer adds instrumentation to global variables unless the
[`no_sanitize_address`](https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#global-attributes)
attribute is set on them.
This commit extends the existing `#[no_sanitize(address)]` attribute to
set this; previously it only had the desired effect on functions.
Rename `rustc_abi::Abi` to `BackendRepr`
Remove the confabulation of `rustc_abi::Abi` with what "ABI" actually means by renaming it to `BackendRepr`, and rename `Abi::Aggregate` to `BackendRepr::Memory`. The type never actually represented how things are passed, as that has to have `PassMode` considered, at minimum, but rather it just is how we represented some things to the backend. This conflation arose because LLVM, the primary backend at the time, would lower certain IR forms using certain ABIs. Even that only somewhat was true, as it broke down when one ventured significantly afield of what is described by the System V AMD64 ABI either by using different architectures, ABI-modifying IR annotations, the same architecture **with different ISA extensions enabled**, or other... unexpected delights.
Unfortunately both names are still somewhat of a misnomer right now, as people have written code for years based on this misunderstanding. Still, their original names are even moreso, and for better or worse, this backend code hasn't received as much maintenance as the rest of the compiler, lately. Actually arriving at a correct end-state will simply require us to disentangle a lot of code in order to fix, much of it pointlessly repeated in several places. Thus this is not an "actual fix", just a way to deflect further misunderstandings.
This commit is a response to feedback on the displayed type
signatures results, by making generics act stricter.
Generics are tightened by making order significant. This means
`Vec<Allocator>` now matches only with a true vector of allocators,
instead of matching the second type param. It also makes unboxing
within generics stricter, so `Result<A, B>` only matches if `B`
is in the error type and `A` is in the success type. The top level
of the function search is unaffected.
Find the discussion on:
* <449965149>
* <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124544#issuecomment-2204272265>
* <476841363>
The initial naming of "Abi" was an awful mistake, conveying wrong ideas
about how psABIs worked and even more about what the enum meant.
It was only meant to represent the way the value would be described to
a codegen backend as it was lowered to that intermediate representation.
It was never meant to mean anything about the actual psABI handling!
The conflation is because LLVM typically will associate a certain form
with a certain ABI, but even that does not hold when the special cases
that actually exist arise, plus the IR annotations that modify the ABI.
Reframe `rustc_abi::Abi` as the `BackendRepr` of the type, and rename
`BackendRepr::Aggregate` as `BackendRepr::Memory`. Unfortunately, due to
the persistent misunderstandings, this too is now incorrect:
- Scattered ABI-relevant code is entangled with BackendRepr
- We do not always pre-compute a correct BackendRepr that reflects how
we "actually" want this value to be handled, so we leave the backend
interface to also inject various special-cases here
- In some cases `BackendRepr::Memory` is a "real" aggregate, but in
others it is in fact using memory, and in some cases it is a scalar!
Our rustc-to-backend lowering code handles this sort of thing right now.
That will eventually be addressed by lifting duplicated lowering code
to either rustc_codegen_ssa or rustc_target as appropriate.
compiler: Add rustc_abi dependence to the compiler
Depend on rustc_abi in compiler crates that use it indirectly but have not yet taken on that dependency, and are not *significantly* entangled in my other PRs. This leaves an "excise rustc_target" step after the dust settles.
Depend on rustc_abi in compiler crates that use it indirectly but have
not yet taken on that dependency, and are not entangled in my other PRs.
This leaves an "excise rustc_target" step after the dust settles.
Rename macro `SmartPointer` to `CoercePointee`
As per resolution #129104 we will rename the macro to better reflect the technical specification of the feature and clarify the communication.
- `SmartPointer` is renamed to `CoerceReferent`
- `#[pointee]` attribute is renamed to `#[referent]`
- `#![feature(derive_smart_pointer)]` gate is renamed to `#![feature(derive_coerce_referent)]`.
- Any mention of `SmartPointer` in the file names are renamed accordingly.
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@nikomatsakis` `@Darksonn`
Use `Enabled{Lang,Lib}Feature` instead of n-tuples
Instead of passing around e.g. `(gate_name, attr_span, stable_since)` 3-tuples for enabled lang features or `(gate_name, attr_span)` 2-tuples for enabled lib features, use `Enabled{Lang,Lib}Feature` structs with named fields.
Also did some minor code-golfing of involved iterator chains to hopefully make them easier to follow.
Follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132098#issuecomment-2434523431 cc `@RalfJung.`
Then we can rename the _raw functions to drop their suffix, and instead
explicitly use is_stable_const_fn for the few cases where that is really what
you want.
Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
