Pass spans around new solver
...so that when we instantiate canonical responses, we can actually have region obligations with the right span.
Within the solver itself, we still use dummy spans everywhere.
Avoid using make_direct_deprecated() in extern "ptx-kernel"
This method will be removed in the future as it produces a broken ABI that depends on cg_llvm implementation details. After this PR wasm32-unknown-unknown is the only remaining user of make_direct_deprecated().
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117271
Blocks https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38788
We have four macros for generating trivial traversal (fold/visit) and
lift impls.
- `rustc_ir::TrivialTypeTraversalImpls`
- `rustc_middle::TrivialTypeTraversalImpls`
- `rustc_middle::TrivialLiftImpls`
- `rustc_middle::TrivialTypeTraversalAndLiftImpls`
The first two are very similar. The last one just combines the second
and third one.
The macros themselves are ok, but their use is a mess. This commit does
the following.
- Removes types that no longer need a lift and/or traversal impl from
the macro calls.
- Consolidates the macro calls into the smallest number of calls
possible, with each one mentioning as many types as possible.
- Orders the types within those macro calls alphabetically, and makes
the module qualification more consistent.
- Eliminates `rustc_middle::mir::type_foldable`, because the macro calls
were merged and the manual `TypeFoldable` impls are better placed in
`structural_impls.rs`, alongside all the other ones.
This makes the code more concise. Moving forward, it also makes it more
obvious where new types should be added.
Reject negative literals for unsigned or char types in pattern ranges and literals
It sucks a bit that we have to duplicate the work here (normal expressions just get this for free from the `ExprKind::UnOp(UnOp::Neg, ...)` typeck logic.
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134228 I caused
```rust
fn main() {
match 42_u8 {
-10..255 => {},
_ => {}
}
}
```
to just compile without even a lint.
I can't believe we didn't have tests for this
Amusingly https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136302 will also register a delayed bug in `lit_to_const` for this, so we'll have a redundancy if something like this fails again.
Upgrade elsa to the newest version.
This was locked to 1.7.1 because of an error in the elsa release process that has since been fixed. Upgrading has the advantage that the elsa code runs properly in miri, at least with tree borrows.
This was spawned from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/135870#issuecomment-2612470540
cg_llvm: Replace some DIBuilder wrappers with LLVM-C API bindings (part 1)
Part of #134001, follow-up to #136326, extracted from #134009.
This PR performs an arbitrary subset of the LLVM-C binding migrations from #134009, which should make it less tedious to review. The remaining migrations can occur in one or more subsequent PRs.
#[contracts::requires(...)] + #[contracts::ensures(...)]
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128044
Updated contract support: attribute syntax for preconditions and postconditions, implemented via a series of desugarings that culminates in:
1. a compile-time flag (`-Z contract-checks`) that, similar to `-Z ub-checks`, attempts to ensure that the decision of enabling/disabling contract checks is delayed until the end user program is compiled,
2. invocations of lang-items that handle invoking the precondition, building a checker for the post-condition, and invoking that post-condition checker at the return sites for the function, and
3. intrinsics for the actual evaluation of pre- and post-condition predicates that third-party verification tools can intercept and reinterpret for their own purposes (e.g. creating shims of behavior that abstract away the function body and replace it solely with the pre- and post-conditions).
Known issues:
* My original intent, as described in the MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/759) was to have a rustc-prefixed attribute namespace (like rustc_contracts::requires). But I could not get things working when I tried to do rewriting via a rustc-prefixed builtin attribute-macro. So for now it is called `contracts::requires`.
* Our attribute macro machinery does not provide direct support for attribute arguments that are parsed like rust expressions. I spent some time trying to add that (e.g. something that would parse the attribute arguments as an AST while treating the remainder of the items as a token-tree), but its too big a lift for me to undertake. So instead I hacked in something approximating that goal, by semi-trivially desugaring the token-tree attribute contents into internal AST constucts. This may be too fragile for the long-term.
* (In particular, it *definitely* breaks when you try to add a contract to a function like this: `fn foo1(x: i32) -> S<{ 23 }> { ... }`, because its token-tree based search for where to inject the internal AST constructs cannot immediately see that the `{ 23 }` is within a generics list. I think we can live for this for the short-term, i.e. land the work, and continue working on it while in parallel adding a new attribute variant that takes a token-tree attribute alongside an AST annotation, which would completely resolve the issue here.)
* the *intent* of `-Z contract-checks` is that it behaves like `-Z ub-checks`, in that we do not prematurely commit to including or excluding the contract evaluation in upstream crates (most notably, `core` and `std`). But the current test suite does not actually *check* that this is the case. Ideally the test suite would be extended with a multi-crate test that explores the matrix of enabling/disabling contracts on both the upstream lib and final ("leaf") bin crates.
Shard AllocMap Lock
This improves performance on many-seed parallel (-Zthreads=32) miri executions from managing to use ~8 cores to using 27-28 cores, which is about the same as what I see with the data structure proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136105 - I haven't analyzed but I suspect the sharding might actually work out better if we commonly insert "densely" since sharding would split the cache lines and the OnceVec packs locks close together. Of course, we could do something similar with the bitset lock too.
Either way, this seems like a very reasonable starting point that solves the problem ~equally well on what I can test locally.
r? `@RalfJung`
mir_build: Rename `thir::cx::Cx` to `ThirBuildCx` and remove `UserAnnotatedTyHelpers`
A combination of two loosely-related tweaks that would otherwise conflict with each other:
- `Cx` is a pretty unhelpful type name, especially when jumping between THIR-building and MIR-building while trying to make changes to THIR data structures.
- The `UserAnnotatedTyHelpers` trait doesn't appear to provide any benefit over a simple helper function, and its `tcx()` method is currently completely unnecessary.
No functional change.
Remove unnecessary layout assertions for object-safe receivers
The soundness of `DispatchFromDyn` relies on the fact that, like all other built-in marker-like layout traits (e.g. `Sized`, `CoerceUnsized`), the guarantees that they enforce in *generic* code via traits will result in assumptions that we can rely on in codegen.
Specifically, `DispatchFromDyn` ensures that we end up with a receiver that is a valid pointer type, and its implementation validity recursively ensures that the ABI of that pointer type upholds the `Scalar` or `ScalarPair` representation for sized and unsized pointees, respectively.
The check that this layout guarantee holds for arbitrary, possibly generic receiver types that also may exist in possibly impossible-to-instantiate where clauses is overkill IMO, and leads to several ICEs due to the fact that computing layouts before monomorphization is going to be fallible at best.
This PR removes the check altogether, since it just exists as a sanity check from very long ago, 6f2a161b1b.
Fixes#125810Fixes#90110
This PR is an alternative to #136195. cc `@adetaylor.` I didn't realize in that PR that the layout checks that were being modified were simply *sanity checks*, rather than being actually necessary for soundness.
Report generic mismatches when calling bodyless trait functions
Don't know if there's an open issue for this. Just happened to notice this when working in that area.
The awkward extra spans added to the diagnostics of some tests (e.g. `trait-with-missing-associated-type-restriction`) is consistent with what happens for normal functions. Should probably be removed since that span doesn't seem to note anything useful.
First and third commit are both cleanups removing some unnecessary work. Second commit has the actual fix.
fixes#135124
Fix a couple NLL TLS spans
Some NLL TLS tests show incorrect spans for the end of function. It seems that the `TerminatorKind::Return` source info span can sometimes point at the single character after the end of the function.
Completely changing the span where the terminator is built also changes a bunch of diagnostics: small functions have more code shown unrelated to the errors at hand, wrapping symbols appear and weird-looking arrows point to the end of function, etc. So it seems this is somehow unexpectedly relied upon in making diagnostics look better and their heuristics.
So I just changed it where it matters for these few tests: the diagnostics specialized to conflict errors with thread locals.
r? `@matthewjasper`
Allow using named consts in pattern types
This required a refactoring first: I had to stop using `hir::Pat`in `hir::TyKind::Pat` and instead create a separate `TyPat` that has `ConstArg` for range ends instead of `PatExpr`. Within the type system we should be using `ConstArg` for all constants, as otherwise we'd be maintaining two separate const systems that could diverge. The big advantage of this PR is that we now inherit all the rules from const generics and don't have a separate system. While this makes things harder for users (const generic rules wrt what is allowed in those consts), it also means we don't accidentally allow some things like referring to assoc consts or doing math on generic consts.
