These were a way to ensure hashes were stable over time for ExternAbi,
but simply hashing the strings is more stable in the face of changes.
As a result, we can do away with them.
By moving this stability check into AST lowering, we effectively make
it impossible to accidentally miss, as it must happen to generate HIR.
Also, we put the ABI-stability code next to code that actually uses it!
This allows code that wants to reason about backend ABI implementations
to stop worrying about high-level concerns like syntax stability,
while still leaving it as the authority on what ABIs actually exist.
It also makes it easy to refactor things to have more consistent errors.
For now, we only apply this to generalize the existing messages a bit.
previously field ordering was using the same seed for all instances of Foo,
now we pass seed values through the layout tree so that not only
the struct itself affects layout but also its fields
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.
Add `LayoutS::is_uninhabited` and use it
Use accessors for the things that accessors are good at: reducing everyone's need to be nosy and peek at the internals of every data structure.
Correct outdated object size limit
The comment here about 48 bit addresses being enough was written in 2016 but was made incorrect in 2019 by 5-level paging, and then persisted for another 5 years before being noticed and corrected.
The bolding of the "exclusive" part is merely to call attention to something I missed when reading it and doublechecking the math.
try-job: i686-msvc
try-job: test-various
The comment here about 48 bit addresses being enough was written in 2016
but was made incorrect in 2019 by 5-level paging, and then persisted for
another 5 years before being noticed and corrected.
Disable dead variant removal for `#[repr(C)]` enums.
This prevents removing dead branches from a `#[repr(C)]` enum (they now get discriminants allocated as if they were inhabited).
Implementation notes: ABI of something like
```rust
#[repr(C)]
enum Foo {
Foo(!),
}
```
is still `Uninhabited`, but its layout is now computed as if all the branches were inhabited.
This seemed to me like a proper way to do it, especially given that ABI sanity check explicitly asserts that type-level uninhabitedness implies ABI uninhabitedness.
This probably needs some sort of FCP (given that it changes `#[repr(C)]` layout, which is a stable guarantee), but I’m not sure how to call for one or which team is the most relevant.
See https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/500.
Added an associated `const THIS_IMPLEMENTATION_HAS_BEEN_TRIPLE_CHECKED`
to the `StableOrd` trait to ensure that implementors carefully consider
whether the trait's contract is upheld, as incorrect implementations can
cause miscompilations.
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
Refactor float `Primitive`s to a separate `Float` type
Now there are 4 of them, it makes sense to refactor `F16`, `F32`, `F64` and `F128` out of `Primitive` and into a separate `Float` type (like integers already are). This allows patterns like `F16 | F32 | F64 | F128` to be simplified into `Float(_)`, and is consistent with `ty::FloatTy`.
As a side effect, this PR also makes the `Ty::primitive_size` method work with `f16` and `f128`.
Tracking issue: #116909
`@rustbot` label +F-f16_and_f128
