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.
Continue to get rid of `ty::Const::{try_}eval*`
This PR mostly does:
* Removes all of the `try_eval_*` and `eval_*` helpers from `ty::Const`, and replace their usages with `try_to_*`.
* Remove `ty::Const::eval`.
* Rename `ty::Const::normalize` to `ty::Const::normalize_internal`. This function is still used in the normalization code itself.
* Fix some weirdness around the `TransmuteFrom` goal.
I'm happy to split it out further; for example, I could probably land the first part which removes the helpers, or the changes to codegen which are more obvious than the changes to tools.
r? BoxyUwU
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130704
Move `SanityCheck` and `MirPass`
They are currently in `rustc_middle`. This PR moves them to `rustc_mir_transform`, which makes more sense.
r? ``@cjgillot``
Because that's now the only crate that uses it.
Moving stuff out of `rustc_middle` is always welcome.
I chose to use `impl crate::MirPass`/`impl crate::MirLint` (with
explicit `crate::`) everywhere because that's the only mention of
`MirPass`/`MirLint` used in all of these files. (Prior to this change,
`MirPass` was mostly imported via `use rustc_middle::mir::*` items.)
Remove `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing`, round 4
Because explicit importing of macros via use items is nicer (more standard and readable) than implicit importing via #[macro_use]. Continuing the work from #124511, #124914, and #125434. After this PR no `rustc_*` crates use `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing` except for `rustc_codegen_gcc` which is a special case and I will do separately.
r? ```@jieyouxu```
Several compiler functions have `Option<!>` for their return type.
That's odd. The only valid return value is `None`, so why is this type
used?
Because it lets you write certain patterns slightly more concisely. E.g.
if you have these common patterns:
```
let Some(a) = f() else { return };
let Ok(b) = g() else { return };
```
you can shorten them to these:
```
let a = f()?;
let b = g().ok()?;
```
Huh.
An `Option` return type typically designates success/failure. How should
I interpret the type signature of a function that always returns (i.e.
doesn't panic), does useful work (modifying `&mut` arguments), and yet
only ever fails? This idiom subverts the type system for a cute
syntactic trick.
Furthermore, returning `Option<!>` from a function F makes things
syntactically more convenient within F, but makes things worse at F's
callsites. The callsites can themselves use `?` with F but should not,
because they will get an unconditional early return, which is almost
certainly not desirable. Instead the return value should be ignored.
(Note that some of callsites of `process_operand`, `process_immedate`,
`process_assign` actually do use `?`, though the early return doesn't
matter in these cases because nothing of significance comes after those
calls. Ugh.)
When I first saw this pattern I had no idea how to interpret it, and it
took me several minutes of close reading to understand everything I've
written above. I even started a Zulip thread about it to make sure I
understood it properly. "Save a few characters by introducing types so
weird that compiler devs have to discuss it on Zulip" feels like a bad
trade-off to me. This commit replaces all the `Option<!>` return values
and uses `else`/`return` (or something similar) to replace the relevant
`?` uses. The result is slightly more verbose but much easier to
understand.
because we are already marking unions `NoPropagation` in
`CanConstProp::check()`. That is enough to prevent any attempts
at const propagating unions and this second check is not needed.
Also improve a comment in `CanConstProp::check()`
Add `tag_for_variant` query
This query allows for sharing code between `rustc_const_eval` and `rustc_transmutability`. It's a precursor to a PR I'm working on to entirely replace the bespoke layout computations in `rustc_transmutability`.
r? `@compiler-errors`
