Improve spans for indexing expressions
fixes#114388
Indexing is similar to method calls in having an arbitrary left-hand-side and then something on the right, which is the main part of the expression. Method calls already have a span for that right part, but indexing does not. This means that long method chains that use indexing have really bad spans, especially when the indexing panics and that span in coverted into a panic location.
This does the same thing as method calls for the AST and HIR, storing an extra span which is then put into the `fn_span` field in THIR.
r? compiler-errors
[rustc_span][perf] Remove unnecessary string joins and allocs.
Comparing vectors of string parts yields the same result but avoids unnecessary `join` and potential allocation for resulting `String`. This code is cold so it's unlikely to have any measurable impact, but considering but since it's also simpler, why not? :)
Lots of tiny incremental simplifications of `EmitterWriter` internals
ignore the first commit, it's https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114088 squashed and rebased, but it's needed to use to use `derive_setters`, as they need a newer `syn` version.
Then this PR starts out with removing many arguments that are almost always defaulted to `None` or `false` and replace them with builder methods that can set these fields in the few cases that want to set them.
After that it's one commit after the other that removes or merges things until everything becomes some very simple trait objects
```
error[E0599]: no method named `x` found for struct `Pin<&S>` in the current scope
--> $DIR/arbitrary_self_type_mut_difference.rs:11:18
|
LL | Pin::new(&S).x();
| ^ help: there is a method with a similar name: `y`
|
note: method is available for `Pin<&mut S>`
--> $DIR/arbitrary_self_type_mut_difference.rs:6:5
|
LL | fn x(self: Pin<&mut Self>) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Related to #57994, as one of the presented cases can lead to code like
this.
This deduplicates some logic and makes it easier to follow what wrappers
are produced. In the future it may allow moving the code to determine
which wrappers to create to cg_ssa.
Indexing is similar to method calls in having an arbitrary
left-hand-side and then something on the right, which is the main part
of the expression. Method calls already have a span for that right part,
but indexing does not. This means that long method chains that use
indexing have really bad spans, especially when the indexing panics and
that span in coverted into a panic location.
This does the same thing as method calls for the AST and HIR, storing an
extra span which is then put into the `fn_span` field in THIR.
Rework upcasting confirmation to support upcasting to fewer projections in target bounds
This PR implements a modified trait upcasting algorithm that is resilient to changes in the number of associated types in the bounds of the source and target trait objects.
It does this by equating each bound of the target trait ref individually against the bounds of the source trait ref, rather than doing them all together by constructing a new trait object.
#### The new way we do trait upcasting confirmation
1. Equate the target trait object's principal trait ref with one of the supertraits of the source trait object's principal.
fdcab310b2/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L2509-L2525)
2. Make sure that every auto trait in the *target* trait object is present in the source trait ref's bounds.
fdcab310b2/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L2559-L2562)
3. For each projection in the *target* trait object, make sure there is exactly one projection that equates with it in the source trait ref's bound. If there is more than one, bail with ambiguity.
fdcab310b2/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L2526-L2557)
* Since there may be more than one that applies, we probe first to check that there is exactly one, then we equate it outside of a probe once we know that it's unique.
4. Make sure the lifetime of the source trait object outlives the lifetime of the target.
<details>
<summary>Meanwhile, this is how we used to do upcasting:</summary>
1. For each supertrait of the source trait object, take that supertrait, append the source object's projection bounds, and the *target* trait object's auto trait bounds, and make this into a new object type:
d12c6e947c/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/confirmation.rs (L915-L929)
2. Then equate it with the target trait object:
d12c6e947c/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/confirmation.rs (L936)
This will be a type mismatch if the target trait object has fewer projection bounds, since we compare the bounds structurally in relate:
d12c6e947c/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/relate.rs (L696-L698)
</details>
Fixes#114035
Also fixes#114113, because I added a normalize call in the old solver.
r? types
resolve before canonicalization in new solver, ICE if unresolved
Fold the values with a resolver before canonicalization instead of making it happen within canonicalization.
This allows us to filter trivial region constraints from the external constraints.
r? ``@lcnr``
Perform OpaqueCast field projection on HIR, too.
fixes#105819
This is necessary for closure captures in 2021 edition, as they capture individual fields, not the full mentioned variables. So it may try to capture a field of an opaque (because the hidden type is known to be something with a field).
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99806 for when and why we added OpaqueCast to MIR.
cg_llvm: stop identifying ADTs in LLVM IR
This is an extension of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94107. It may be a minor perf win.
Fixes#96242.
Now that we use opaque pointers, ADTs can no longer be recursive, so we
do not need to name them. Previously, this would be necessary if you had
a struct like
```rs
struct Foo(Box<Foo>, u64, u64);
```
which would be represented with something like
```ll
%Foo = type { %Foo*, i64, i64 }
```
which is now just
```ll
{ ptr, i64, i64 }
```
r? `@tmiasko`
Enable tests on rustc_codegen_ssa
This enables unittests in rustc_codegen_ssa. There are some tests, primarily in [`back/rpath/tests.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/HEAD/compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa/src/back/rpath/tests.rs) that haven't ever been running since the unittests are disabled. From what I can tell, this was just a consequence of how things evolved. When testing was initially added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/33282, `librustc_trans` had test=false because it didn't have any tests. `rustc_codegen_ssa` eventually split off from that (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/55627), and the rpath module eventually got merged in too (from `librustc_back` where it used to live). That migration didn't enable the tests.
This also includes some fluent diagnostic tests, though I'm not sure what exactly they are testing.
Forbid old-style `simd_shuffleN` intrinsics
Don't merge before https://github.com/rust-lang/packed_simd/pull/350 has made its way to crates.io
We used to support specifying the lane length of simd_shuffle ops by attaching the lane length to the name of the intrinsic (like `simd_shuffle16`). After this PR, you cannot do that anymore, and need to instead either rely on inference of the `idx` argument type or specify it as `simd_shuffle::<_, [u32; 16], _>`.
r? `@workingjubilee`
Only unpack tupled args in inliner if we expect args to be unpacked
`"rust-call"` is a strange function abi. sometimes, it expects the arguments to be unpacked by the caller and passed as individual args (closure bodies), and sometimes it does not (user functions annotated with the `"rust-call"` abi).
make sure the mir inliner respects this difference when checking that arguments are compatible, and doesn't try to ICE when we call a `extern "rust-call"` function in a generic context.
fixes#110829
Add `internal_features` lint
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/596
Also requires some more test blessing for codegen tests etc
`@jyn514` had the idea of just `allow`ing the lint by default in the test suite. I'm not sure whether this is a good idea, but it's definitely one worth considering. Additional input encouraged.
