Make `EvalCtxt` generic over `InferCtxtLike`
...but don't change any of the impls, yet! These can get uplifted as we add more methods to `InferCtxtLike`/`Interner` :3
This is built on top of #125230.
r? lcnr
defrost `RUST_MIN_STACK=ice rustc hello.rs`
I didn't think too hard about testing my previous PR rust-lang/rust#122847 which makes our stack overflow handler assist people in discovering the `RUST_MIN_STACK` variable (which apparently is surprisingly useful for Really Big codebases). After it was merged, some useful comments left in a drive-by review led me to discover I had added an ICE. This reworks the code a bit to explain the rationale, remove the ICE that I introduced, and properly test one of the diagnostics.
fix suggestion in E0373 for !Unpin coroutines
Coroutines can be prefixed with the `static` keyword to make them
`!Unpin`.
However, given the following function:
```rust
fn check() -> impl Sized {
let x = 0;
#[coroutine]
static || {
yield;
x
}
}
```
We currently suggest prefixing `move` before `static`, which is
syntactically incorrect:
```
error[E0373]: coroutine may outlive the current function, but it borrows
...
--> src/main.rs:6:5
|
6 | static || {
| ^^^^^^^^^ may outlive borrowed value `x`
7 | yield;
8 | x
| - `x` is borrowed here
|
note: coroutine is returned here
--> src/main.rs:6:5
|
6 | / static || {
7 | | yield;
8 | | x
9 | | }
| |_____^
help: to force the coroutine to take ownership of `x` (and any other
referenced variables), use the `move` keyword
| // this is syntactically incorrect, it should be `static move ||`
6 | move static || {
| ++++
```
This PR suggests adding `move` after `static` for these coroutines.
I also added a UI test for this case.
Never type unsafe lint improvements
- Move linting code to a separate method
- Remove mentions of `core::convert::absurd` (#124311 was rejected)
- Make the lint into FCW
The last thing is a bit weird though. On one hand it should be `EditionSemanticsChange(2024)`, but on the other hand it shouldn't, because we also plan to break it on all editions some time later. _Also_, it's weird that we don't have `FutureReleaseSemanticsChangeReportInDeps`, IMO "this might cause UB in a future release" is important enough to be reported in deps...
IMO we ought to have three enums instead of [`FutureIncompatibilityReason`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_lint_defs/enum.FutureIncompatibilityReason.html#):
```rust
enum IncompatibilityWhen {
FutureRelease,
Edition(Edition),
}
enum IncompatibilyWhat {
Error,
SemanticChange,
}
enum IncompatibilityReportInDeps {
No,
Yes,
}
```
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123748
Add `fn into_raw_with_allocator` to Rc/Arc/Weak.
Split out from #119761
Add `fn into_raw_with_allocator` for `Rc`/`rc::Weak`[^1]/`Arc`/`sync::Weak`.
* Pairs with `from_raw_in` (which already exists on all 4 types).
* Name matches `Box::into_raw_with_allocator`.
* Associated fns on `Rc`/`Arc`, methods on `Weak`s.
<details> <summary>Future PR/ACP</summary>
As a follow-on to this PR, I plan to make a PR/ACP later to move `into_raw(_parts)` from `Container<_, A: Allocator>` to only `Container<_, Global>` (where `Container` = `Vec`/`Box`/`Rc`/`rc::Weak`/`Arc`/`sync::Weak`) so that users of non-`Global` allocators have to explicitly handle the allocator when using `into_raw`-like APIs.
The current behaviors of stdlib containers are inconsistent with respect to what happens to the allocator when `into_raw` is called (which does not return the allocator)
| Type | `into_raw` currently callable with | behavior of `into_raw`|
| --- | --- | --- |
| `Box` | any allocator | allocator is [dropped](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/src/alloc/boxed.rs.html#1060) |
| `Vec` | any allocator | allocator is [forgotten](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/src/alloc/vec/mod.rs.html#884) |
| `Arc`/`Rc`/`Weak` | any allocator | allocator is [forgotten](https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/sync.rs.html#1487)(Arc) [(sync::Weak)](https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/sync.rs.html#2726) [(Rc)](https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/rc.rs.html#1352) [(rc::Weak)](https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/rc.rs.html#2993) |
In my opinion, neither implicitly dropping nor implicitly forgetting the allocator is ideal; dropping it could immediately invalidate the returned pointer, and forgetting it could unintentionally leak memory. My (to-be) proposed solution is to just forbid calling `into_raw(_parts)` on containers with non-`Global` allocators, and require calling `into_raw_with_allocator`(/`Vec::into_raw_parts_with_alloc`)
</details>
[^1]: Technically, `rc::Weak::into_raw_with_allocator` is not newly added, as it was modified and renamed from `rc::Weak::into_raw_and_alloc`.
Update to LLVM 18.1.6
This rebases our LLVM fork on top of LLVM 18.1.6, which is planned to be the last release of the 18.x series.
Fixes#123695.
Fixes#125053.
r? `@cuviper`
An earlier commit included the change for a suggestion here.
Unfortunately, it also used unwrap instead of dying properly.
Roll out the ~~rice paper~~ EarlyDiagCtxt before we do anything that
might leave a mess.
Coroutines can be prefixed with the `static` keyword to make them
`!Unpin`.
However, given the following function:
```rust
fn check() -> impl Sized {
let x = 0;
#[coroutine]
static || {
yield;
x
}
}
```
We currently suggest prefixing `move` before `static`, which is
syntactically incorrect:
```
error[E0373]: coroutine may outlive the current function, but it borrows
...
--> src/main.rs:6:5
|
6 | static || {
| ^^^^^^^^^ may outlive borrowed value `x`
7 | yield;
8 | x
| - `x` is borrowed here
|
note: coroutine is returned here
--> src/main.rs:6:5
|
6 | / static || {
7 | | yield;
8 | | x
9 | | }
| |_____^
help: to force the coroutine to take ownership of `x` (and any other
referenced variables), use the `move` keyword
| // this is syntactically incorrect, it should be `static move ||`
6 | move static || {
| ++++
```
This PR suggests adding `move` after `static` for these coroutines.
chore: Remove repeated words (extension of #124924)
When I saw #124924 I thought "Hey, I'm sure that there are far more than just two typos of this nature in the codebase". So here's some more typo-fixing.
Some found with regex, some found with a spellchecker. Every single one manually reviewed by me (along with hundreds of false negatives by the tools)
Directly implement native exception raise methods in miri
This implements the `_Unwind_RaiseException` function used on pretty much every unix system for starting unwinding. This allows removing the miri special case from libpanic_unwind for unix.
Windows still needs `miri_start_unwind` as SEH unwinding isn't supported by miri. Unlike DWARF unwinding, SEH preserves all stack frames until right after the do_catch function has executed. Because of this panic_unwind stack allocates the exception object. Miri can't currently model unwinding without destroying stack frames and as such will report a use-after-free of the exception object.
