Somehow these files aren't properly formatted. By default `x fmt` and `x
tidy` only check files that have changed against master, so if an
ill-formatted file somehow slips in it can stay that way as long as it
doesn't get modified(?)
I found these when I ran `x fmt` explicitly on every `.rs` file in the
repo, while working on
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/750.
Remove more `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing`
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 and #124914.
r? `@jackh726`
offset: allow zero-byte offset on arbitrary pointers
As per prior `@rust-lang/opsem` [discussion](https://github.com/rust-lang/opsem-team/issues/10) and [FCP](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/472#issuecomment-1793409130):
- Zero-sized reads and writes are allowed on all sufficiently aligned pointers, including the null pointer
- Inbounds-offset-by-zero is allowed on all pointers, including the null pointer
- `offset_from` on two pointers derived from the same allocation is always allowed when they have the same address
This removes surprising UB (in particular, even C++ allows "nullptr + 0", which we currently disallow), and it brings us one step closer to an important theoretical property for our semantics ("provenance monotonicity": if operations are valid on bytes without provenance, then adding provenance can't make them invalid).
The minimum LLVM we require (v17) includes https://reviews.llvm.org/D154051, so we can finally implement this.
The `offset_from` change is needed to maintain the equivalence with `offset`: if `let ptr2 = ptr1.offset(N)` is well-defined, then `ptr2.offset_from(ptr1)` should be well-defined and return N. Now consider the case where N is 0 and `ptr1` dangles: we want to still allow offset_from here.
I think we should change offset_from further, but that's a separate discussion.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65108
[Tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117945) | [T-lang summary](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117329#issuecomment-1951981106)
Cc `@nikic`
Print a backtrace in const eval if interrupted
Demo:
```rust
#![feature(const_eval_limit)]
#![const_eval_limit = "0"]
const OW: u64 = {
let mut res: u64 = 0;
let mut i = 0;
while i < u64::MAX {
res = res.wrapping_add(i);
i += 1;
}
res
};
fn main() {
println!("{}", OW);
}
```
```
╭ ➜ ben@archlinux:~/rust
╰ ➤ rustc +stage1 spin.rs
^Cerror[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> spin.rs:8:33
|
8 | res = res.wrapping_add(i);
| ^ Compilation was interrupted
note: erroneous constant used
--> spin.rs:15:20
|
15 | println!("{}", OW);
| ^^
note: erroneous constant used
--> spin.rs:15:20
|
15 | println!("{}", OW);
| ^^
|
= note: this note originates in the macro `$crate::format_args_nl` which comes from the expansion of the macro `println` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0080`.
```
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #114009 (compiler: allow transmute of ZST arrays with generics)
- #122195 (Note that the caller chooses a type for type param)
- #122651 (Suggest `_` for missing generic arguments in turbofish)
- #122784 (Add `tag_for_variant` query)
- #122839 (Split out `PredicatePolarity` from `ImplPolarity`)
- #122873 (Merge my contributor emails into one using mailmap)
- #122885 (Adjust better spastorino membership to triagebot's adhoc_groups)
- #122888 (add a couple more tests)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add tests (and a bit of cleanup) for interior mut handling in promotion and const-checking
Basically these are the parts of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121786 that can be salvaged.
r? ``@oli-obk``
MIR printing: print the path of uneval'd const
Currently it just prints `const _` which makes it impossible to say which constant is being referred to.
Also refer to promoteds in a consistent way; previously MIR printing would do
```
promoted[0] in C1: &Option<Cell<i32>> = {
// ...
}
```
Now that should be
```
const C1::promoted[0]: &Option<Cell<i32>> = {
// ...
}
```
We don't seem to have a test for that so I tried it by hand, it seems to work:
```
const main::promoted[12]: &[&str; 3] = {
let mut _0: &[&str; 3];
let mut _1: [&str; 3];
let mut _2: &str;
let mut _3: &str;
let mut _4: &str;
let mut _5: &str;
bb0: {
_3 = const "b";
_2 = &(*_3);
_5 = const "c";
_4 = &(*_5);
_1 = [const "a", move _2, move _4];
_0 = &_1;
return;
}
}
```
