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.
Prevent Deduplication of `LongRunningWarn`
Fixes#118612
As mention in the issue, `LongRunningWarn` is meant to be repeated multiple times.
Therefore, this PR stores a unique number in every instance of `LongRunningWarn` so that it's not hashed into the same value and omitted by the deduplication mechanism.
make writes_through_immutable_pointer a hard error
This turns the lint added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118324 into a hard error. This has been reported in cargo's future-compat reports since Rust 1.76 (released in February). Given that const_mut_refs is still unstable, it should be impossible to even hit this error on stable: we did accidentally stabilize some functions that can cause this error, but that got reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117905. Still, let's do a crater run just to be sure.
Given that this should only affect unstable code, I don't think it needs an FCP, but let's Cc ``@rust-lang/lang`` anyway -- any objection to making this unambiguous UB into a hard error during const-eval? This can be viewed as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129195 which is already nominated for discussion.
The guarded call will ICE on its own.
While this improved diagnostics in the presence of bugs somewhat, it is also a blocker to query feeding of constants. If this case is hit again, we should instead improve diagnostics of the root ICE
Use `MPlaceTy` instead of `PlaceTy` in `FnArg` and ignore (copy) locals in an
earlier step ("Locals that don't have their address taken are as protected as
they can ever be").
This seems to be crucial for tail call support (as they can't refer to caller's
locals which are killed when replacing the stack frame).
I have a suspicion that quite a few delayed bug paths are impossible to
reach, so I did an experiment.
I converted every `delayed_bug` to a `bug`, ran the full test suite,
then converted back every `bug` that was hit. A surprising number were
never hit.
The next commit will convert some more back, based on human judgment.
Instead we re-use the static's alloc id within the interpreter for its initializer to refer to the `Allocation` that only exists within the interpreter.
Replacement of #114390: Add new intrinsic `is_var_statically_known` and optimize pow for powers of two
This adds a new intrinsic `is_val_statically_known` that lowers to [``@llvm.is.constant.*`](https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-is-constant-intrinsic).` It also applies the intrinsic in the int_pow methods to recognize and optimize the idiom `2isize.pow(x)`. See #114390 for more discussion.
While I have extended the scope of the power of two optimization from #114390, I haven't added any new uses for the intrinsic. That can be done in later pull requests.
Note: When testing or using the library, be sure to use `--stage 1` or higher. Otherwise, the intrinsic will be a noop and the doctests will be skipped. If you are trying out edits, you may be interested in [`--keep-stage 0`](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/building/suggested.html#faster-builds-with---keep-stage).
Fixes#47234Resolves#114390
`@Centri3`
const-eval interning: get rid of type-driven traversal
This entirely replaces our const-eval interner, i.e. the code that takes the final result of a constant evaluation from the local memory of the const-eval machine to the global `tcx` memory. The main goal of this change is to ensure that we can detect mutable references that sneak into this final value -- this is something we want to reject for `static` and `const`, and while const-checking performs some static analysis to ensure this, I would be much more comfortable stabilizing const_mut_refs if we had a dynamic check that sanitizes the final value. (This is generally the approach we have been using on const-eval: do a static check to give nice errors upfront, and then do a dynamic check to be really sure that the properties we need for soundness, actually hold.)
We can do this now that https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118324 landed and each pointer comes with a bit (completely independent of its type) storing whether mutation is permitted through this pointer or not.
The new interner is a lot simpler than the old one: previously we did a complete type-driven traversal to determine the mutability of all memory we see, and then a second pass to intern any leftover raw pointers. The new interner simply recursively traverses the allocation holding the final result, and all allocations reachable from it (which can be determined from the raw bytes of the result, without knowing anything about types), and ensures they all get interned. The initial allocation is interned as immutable for `const` and pomoted and non-interior-mutable `static`; all other allocations are interned as immutable for `static`, `const`, and promoted. The main subtlety is justifying that those inner allocations may indeed be interned immutably, i.e., that mutating them later would anyway already be UB:
- for promoteds, we rely on the analysis that does promotion to ensure that this is sound.
- for `const` and `static`, we check that all pointers in the final result that point to things that are new (i.e., part of this const evaluation) are immutable, i.e., were created via `&<expr>` at a non-interior-mutable type. Mutation through immutable pointers is UB so we are free to intern that memory as immutable.
Interning raises an error if it encounters a dangling pointer or a mutable pointer that violates the above rules.
I also extended our type-driven const validity checks to ensure that `&mut T` in the final value of a const points to mutable memory, at least if `T` is not zero-sized. This catches cases of people turning `&i32` into `&mut i32` (which would still be considered a read-only pointer). Similarly, when these checks encounter an `UnsafeCell`, they are checking that it lives in mutable memory. (Both of these only traverse the newly created values; if those point to other consts/promoteds, the check stops there. But that's okay, we don't have to catch all the UB.) I co-developed this with the stricter interner changes but I can split it out into a separate PR if you prefer.
This PR does have the immediate effect of allowing some new code on stable, for instance:
```rust
const CONST_RAW: *const Vec<i32> = &Vec::new() as *const _;
```
Previously that code got rejected since the type-based interner didn't know what to do with that pointer. It's a raw pointer, we cannot trust its type. The new interner does not care about types so it sees no issue with this code; there's an immutable pointer pointing to some read-only memory (storing a `Vec<i32>`), all is good. Accepting this code pretty much commits us to non-type-based interning, but I think that's the better strategy anyway.
This PR also leads to slightly worse error messages when the final value of a const contains a dangling reference. Previously we would complete interning and then the type-based validation would detect this dangling reference and show a nice error saying where in the value (i.e., in which field) the dangling reference is located. However, the new interner cannot distinguish dangling references from dangling raw pointers, so it must throw an error when it encounters either of them. It doesn't have an understanding of the value structure so all it can say is "somewhere in this constant there's a dangling pointer". (Later parts of the compiler don't like dangling pointers/references so we have to reject them either during interning or during validation.) This could potentially be improved by doing validation before interning, but that's a larger change that I have not attempted yet. (It's also subtle since we do want validation to use the final mutability bits of all involved allocations, and currently it is interning that marks a bunch of allocations as immutable -- that would have to still happen before validation.)
`@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` I hope you are okay with this plan. :)
`@rust-lang/lang` paging you in since this accepts new code on stable as explained above. Please let me know if you think FCP is necessary.
Fix overflow check
Make MIRI choose the path randomly and rename the intrinsic
Add back test
Add miri test and make it operate on `ptr`
Define `llvm.is.constant` for primitives
Update MIRI comment and fix test in stage2
Add const eval test
Clarify that both branches must have the same side effects
guaranteed non guarantee
use immediate type instead
Co-Authored-By: Ralf Jung <post@ralfj.de>
