Miri: GC the dead_alloc_map too
dead_alloc_map is the last piece of state in the interpreter I can find that leaks. With this PR, all of the long-term memory growth I can find in Miri with programs that do things like run a big `loop {` or run property tests is attributable to some data structure properties in borrow tracking, and is _extremely_ slow.
My only gripe with the commit in this PR is that I don't have a new test for it. I'd like to have a regression test for this, but it would have to be statistical I think because the peak memory of a process that Linux reports is not exactly the same run-to-run. Which means it would have to not be very sensitive to slow leaks (some guesswork suggests for acceptable CI time we would be checking for like 10% memory growth over a minute or two, which is still pretty fast IMO).
Unless someone has a better idea for how to detect a regression, I think on balance I'm fine with manually keeping an eye on the memory use situation.
r? RalfJung
Expand Miri's BorTag GC to a Provenance GC
As suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/3080#issuecomment-1732505573
We previously solved memory growth issues associated with the Stacked Borrows and Tree Borrows runtimes with a GC. But of course we also have state accumulation associated with whole allocations elsewhere in the interpreter, and this PR starts tackling those.
To do this, we expand the visitor for the GC so that it can visit a BorTag or an AllocId. Instead of collecting all live AllocIds into a single HashSet, we just collect from the Machine itself then go through an accessor `InterpCx::is_alloc_live` which checks a number of allocation data structures in the core interpreter. This avoids the overhead of all the inserts that collecting their keys would require.
r? ``@RalfJung``
interpret: simplify handling of shifts by no longer trying to handle signed and unsigned shift amounts in the same branch
While we're at it, also update comments in codegen and MIR building related to shifts, and fix the overflow error printed by Miri on negative shift amounts.
Avoid the path trimming ICE lint in error reporting
Types or really anything in MIR should never be formatted without path trimming disabled, because its formatting often tries to construct trimmed paths. In this case, the lint turns a nice error report into an irrelevant ICE.
share some track_caller logic between interpret and codegen
Also move the code that implements the track_caller intrinsics out of the core interpreter engine -- it's just a helper creating a const-allocation, doesn't need to be part of the interpreter core.
Make `ty::print::Printer` take `&mut self` instead of `self`
based on #116815
This simplifies the code by removing all the `self` assignments and
makes the flow of data clearer - always into the printer.
Especially in v0 mangling, which already used `&mut self` in some
places, it gets a lot more uniform.
This simplifies the code by removing all the `self` assignments and
makes the flow of data clearer - always into the printer.
Especially in v0 mangling, which already used `&mut self` in some
places, it gets a lot more uniform.
Implement rustc part of RFC 3127 trim-paths
This PR implements (or at least tries to) [RFC 3127 trim-paths](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111540), the rustc part. That is `-Zremap-path-scope` with all of it's components/scopes.
`@rustbot` label: +F-trim-paths
don't UB on dangling ptr deref, instead check inbounds on projections
This implements https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1387 in Miri. See that PR for what the change is about.
Detecting dangling references in `let x = &...;` is now done by validity checking only, so some tests need to have validity checking enabled. There is no longer inherently a "nodangle" check in evaluating the expression `&*ptr` (aside from the aliasing model).
r? `@oli-obk`
Based on:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1387
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115524
interpret: clean up AllocBytes
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2836
Nothing has moved here in half a year, so let's just remove these unused stubs -- they need a proper re-design anyway.
r? `@oli-obk`
Format all the let-chains in compiler crates
Since rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 has landed, soon we will have support for formatting let-chains (as soon as rustfmt syncs and beta gets bumped).
This PR applies the changes [from master rustfmt to rust-lang/rust eagerly](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/122651-general/topic/out.20formatting.20of.20prs/near/374997516), so that the next beta bump does not have to deal with a 200+ file diff and can remain concerned with other things like `cfg(bootstrap)` -- #113637 was a pain to land, for example, because of let-else.
I will also add this commit to the ignore list after it has landed.
The commands that were run -- I'm not great at bash-foo, but this applies rustfmt to every compiler crate, and then reverts the two crates that should probably be formatted out-of-tree.
```
~/rustfmt $ ls -1d ~/rust/compiler/* | xargs -I@ cargo run --bin rustfmt -- `@/src/lib.rs` --config-path ~/rust --edition=2021 # format all of the compiler crates
~/rust $ git checkout HEAD -- compiler/rustc_codegen_{gcc,cranelift} # revert changes to cg-gcc and cg-clif
```
cc `@rust-lang/rustfmt`
r? `@WaffleLapkin` or `@Nilstrieb` who said they may be able to review this purely mechanical PR :>
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` and `@petrochenkov,` who had some thoughts on the order of operations with big formatting changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95262#issue-1178993801. I think the situation has changed since then, given that let-chains support exists on master rustfmt now, and I'm fairly confident that this formatting PR should land even if *bootstrap* rustfmt doesn't yet format let-chains in order to lessen the burden of the next beta bump.
const-eval: make misalignment a hard error
It's been a future-incompat error (showing up in cargo's reports) since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104616, Rust 1.68, released in March. That should be long enough.
The question for the lang team is simply -- should we move ahead with this, making const-eval alignment failures a hard error? (It turns out some of them accidentally already were hard errors since #104616. But not all so this is still a breaking change. Crater found no regression.)
