Call lower_const_param instead of duplicating the code
Follow up of #123689
r? `@oli-obk`
I had this commit in my old branch that I had forgotten about, `@fmease` pointed about this in #123689
I've left the branches that are not `Range` as do nothing as that's what we are currently doing but maybe we want to err or something.
Tweak value suggestions in `borrowck` and `hir_analysis`
Unify the output of `suggest_assign_value` and `ty_kind_suggestion`.
Ideally we'd make these a single function, but doing so would likely require modify the crate dependency tree.
Propagate temporary lifetime extension into if and match.
This PR makes this work:
```rust
let a = if true {
..;
&temp() // used to error, but now gets lifetime extended
} else {
..;
&temp() // used to error, but now gets lifetime extended
};
```
and
```rust
let a = match () {
_ => {
..;
&temp() // used to error, but now gets lifetime extended
}
};
```
to make it consistent with:
```rust
let a = {
..;
&temp() // lifetime is extended
};
```
This is one small part of [the temporary lifetimes work](https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/253).
This part is backwards compatible (so doesn't need be edition-gated), because all code affected by this change previously resulted in a hard error.
Unify the output of `suggest_assign_value` and `ty_kind_suggestion`.
Ideally we'd make these a single function, but doing so would likely require modify the crate dependency tree.
Ensure we do not accidentally insert new early aborts in the analysis passes
pulling the infallible part out into a separate function makes sure that someone needs to change the signature in order to regress this.
We only want to stop compilation in the presence of errors after all analyses are done, but before we start running lints.
per-item we can still stop doing work if previous queries returned errors, but that's a separate story.
Pass list of defineable opaque types into canonical queries
This eliminates `DefiningAnchor::Bubble` for good and brings the old solver closer to the new one wrt cycles and nested obligations. At that point the difference between `DefiningAnchor::Bind([])` and `DefiningAnchor::Error` was academic. We only used the difference for some sanity checks, which actually had to be worked around in places, so I just removed `DefiningAnchor` entirely and just stored the list of opaques that may be defined.
fixes#108498
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116877
* [x] run crater
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122077#issuecomment-2013293931
Assert that args are actually compatible with their generics, rather than just their count
Right now we just check that the number of args is right, rather than actually checking the kinds. Uplift a helper fn that I wrote from trait selection to do just that. Found a couple bugs along the way.
r? `@lcnr` or `@fmease` (or anyone really lol)
Rename `expose_addr` to `expose_provenance`
`expose_addr` is a bad name, an address is just a number and cannot be exposed. The operation is actually about the provenance of the pointer.
This PR thus changes the name of the method to `expose_provenance` without changing its return type. There is sufficient precedence for returning a useful value from an operation that does something else without the name indicating such, e.g. [`Option::insert`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/option/enum.Option.html#method.insert) and [`MaybeUninit::write`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/mem/union.MaybeUninit.html#method.write).
Returning the address is merely convenient, not a fundamental part of the operation. This is implied by the fact that integers do not have provenance since
```rust
let addr = ptr.addr();
ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
must behave exactly like
```rust
let addr = ptr.expose_provenance();
let new = ptr::with_exposed_provenance(addr);
```
as the result of `ptr.expose_provenance()` and `ptr.addr()` is the same integer. Therefore, this PR removes the `#[must_use]` annotation on the function and updates the documentation to reflect the important part.
~~An alternative name would be `expose_provenance`. I'm not at all opposed to that, but it makes a stronger implication than we might want that the provenance of the pointer returned by `ptr::with_exposed_provenance`[^1] is the same as that what was exposed, which is not yet specified as such IIUC. IMHO `expose` does not make that connection.~~
A previous version of this PR suggested `expose` as name, libs-api [decided on](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122964#issuecomment-2033194319) `expose_provenance` to keep the symmetry with `with_exposed_provenance`.
CC `@RalfJung`
r? libs-api
[^1]: I'm using the new name for `from_exposed_addr` suggested by #122935 here.
Assert `FnDef` kind
Only found one bug, where we were using the variant def id rather than its ctor def id to make the `FnDef` for a `type_of`
r? fmease
rename ptr::from_exposed_addr -> ptr::with_exposed_provenance
As discussed on [Zulip](427757066).
The old name, `from_exposed_addr`, makes little sense as it's not the address that is exposed, it's the provenance. (`ptr.expose_addr()` stays unchanged as we haven't found a better option yet. The intended interpretation is "expose the provenance and return the address".)
The new name nicely matches `ptr::without_provenance`.
Make sure to insert `Sized` bound first into clauses list
#120323 made it so that we don't insert an implicit `Sized` bound whenever we see an *explicit* `Sized` bound. However, since the code that inserts implicit sized bounds puts the bound as the *first* in the list, that means that it had the **side-effect** of possibly meaning we check `Sized` *after* checking other trait bounds.
If those trait bounds result in ambiguity or overflow or something, it may change how we winnow candidates. (**edit: SEE** #123303) This is likely the cause for the regression in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123279#issuecomment-2028899598, since the impl...
```rust
impl<T: Job + Sized> AsJob for T { // <----- changing this to `Sized + Job` or just `Job` (which turns into `Sized + Job`) will FIX the issue.
}
```
...looks incredibly suspicious.
Fixes [after beta-backport] #123279.
Alternative is to revert #120323. I don't have a strong opinion about this, but think it may be nice to keep the diagnostic changes around.
De-LLVM the unchecked shifts [MCP#693]
This is just one part of the MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/693), but it's the one that IMHO removes the most noise from the standard library code.
Seems net simpler this way, since MIR already supported heterogeneous shifts anyway, and thus it's not more work for backends than before.
r? WaffleLapkin
Add `Ord::cmp` for primitives as a `BinOp` in MIR
Update: most of this OP was written months ago. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118310#issuecomment-2016940014 below for where we got to recently that made it ready for review.
---
There are dozens of reasonable ways to implement `Ord::cmp` for integers using comparison, bit-ops, and branches. Those differences are irrelevant at the rust level, however, so we can make things better by adding `BinOp::Cmp` at the MIR level:
1. Exactly how to implement it is left up to the backends, so LLVM can use whatever pattern its optimizer best recognizes and cranelift can use whichever pattern codegens the fastest.
2. By not inlining those details for every use of `cmp`, we drastically reduce the amount of MIR generated for `derive`d `PartialOrd`, while also making it more amenable to MIR-level optimizations.
Having extremely careful `if` ordering to μoptimize resource usage on broadwell (#63767) is great, but it really feels to me like libcore is the wrong place to put that logic. Similarly, using subtraction [tricks](https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#CopyIntegerSign) (#105840) is arguably even nicer, but depends on the optimizer understanding it (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/73417) to be practical. Or maybe [bitor is better than add](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/representing-in-ir/67369/2?u=scottmcm)? But maybe only on a future version that [has `or disjoint` support](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-add-or-disjoint-flag/75036?u=scottmcm)? And just because one of those forms happens to be good for LLVM, there's no guarantee that it'd be the same form that GCC or Cranelift would rather see -- especially given their very different optimizers. Not to mention that if LLVM gets a spaceship intrinsic -- [which it should](404250586) -- we'll need at least a rustc intrinsic to be able to call it.
As for simplifying it in Rust, we now regularly inline `{integer}::partial_cmp`, but it's quite a large amount of IR. The best way to see that is with 8811efa88b (diff-d134c32d028fbe2bf835fef2df9aca9d13332dd82284ff21ee7ebf717bfa4765R113) -- I added a new pre-codegen MIR test for a simple 3-tuple struct, and this PR change it from 36 locals and 26 basic blocks down to 24 locals and 8 basic blocks. Even better, as soon as the construct-`Some`-then-match-it-in-same-BB noise is cleaned up, this'll expose the `Cmp == 0` branches clearly in MIR, so that an InstCombine (#105808) can simplify that to just a `BinOp::Eq` and thus fix some of our generated code perf issues. (Tracking that through today's `if a < b { Less } else if a == b { Equal } else { Greater }` would be *much* harder.)
---
r? `@ghost`
But first I should check that perf is ok with this
~~...and my true nemesis, tidy.~~
