This is no longer used by the compiler itself, and removing this support opens
the door to massively simplifying the Decodable/Decoder API by dropping the
self-describing deserialization support (necessary for JSON).
Improve `unused_unsafe` lint
I’m going to add some motivation and explanation below, particularly pointing the changes in behavior from this PR.
_Edit:_ Looking for existing issues, looks like this PR fixes#88260.
_Edit2:_ Now also contains code that closes#90776.
Main motivation: Fixes some issues with the current behavior. This PR is
more-or-less completely re-implementing the unused_unsafe lint; it’s also only
done in the MIR-version of the lint, the set of tests for the `-Zthir-unsafeck`
version no longer succeeds (and is thus disabled, see `lint-unused-unsafe.rs`).
On current nightly,
```rs
unsafe fn unsf() {}
fn inner_ignored() {
unsafe {
#[allow(unused_unsafe)]
unsafe {
unsf()
}
}
}
```
doesn’t create any warnings. This situation is not unrealistic to come by, the
inner `unsafe` block could e.g. come from a macro. Actually, this PR even
includes removal of one unused `unsafe` in the standard library that was missed
in a similar situation. (The inner `unsafe` coming from an external macro hides
the warning, too.)
The reason behind this problem is how the check currently works:
* While generating MIR, it already skips nested unsafe blocks (i.e. unsafe
nested in other unsafe) so that the inner one is always the one considered
unused
* To differentiate the cases of no unsafe operations inside the `unsafe` vs.
a surrounding `unsafe` block, there’s some ad-hoc magic walking up the HIR to
look for surrounding used `unsafe` blocks.
There’s a lot of problems with this approach besides the one presented above.
E.g. the MIR-building uses checks for `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint to decide
early whether or not `unsafe` blocks in an `unsafe fn` are redundant and ought
to be removed.
```rs
unsafe fn granular_disallow_op_in_unsafe_fn() {
unsafe {
#[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
{
unsf();
}
}
}
```
```
error: call to unsafe function is unsafe and requires unsafe block (error E0133)
--> src/main.rs:13:13
|
13 | unsf();
| ^^^^^^ call to unsafe function
|
note: the lint level is defined here
--> src/main.rs:11:16
|
11 | #[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: consult the function's documentation for information on how to avoid undefined behavior
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:5
|
9 | unsafe fn granular_disallow_op_in_unsafe_fn() {
| --------------------------------------------- because it's nested under this `unsafe` fn
10 | unsafe {
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
```
Here, the intermediate `unsafe` was ignored, even though it contains a unsafe
operation that is not allowed to happen in an `unsafe fn` without an additional `unsafe` block.
Also closures were problematic and the workaround/algorithms used on current
nightly didn’t work properly. (I skipped trying to fully understand what it was
supposed to do, because this PR uses a completely different approach.)
```rs
fn nested() {
unsafe {
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
```
vs
```rs
fn nested() {
let _ = || unsafe {
let _ = || unsafe { unsf() };
};
}
```
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:9:16
|
9 | let _ = || unsafe {
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:20
|
10 | let _ = || unsafe { unsf() };
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
*note that this warning kind-of suggests that **both** unsafe blocks are redundant*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also dislike the fact that it always suggests keeping the outermost `unsafe`.
E.g. for
```rs
fn granularity() {
unsafe {
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
I prefer if `rustc` suggests removing the more-course outer-level `unsafe`
instead of the fine-grained inner `unsafe` blocks, which it currently does on nightly:
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:11:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
11 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:12:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
12 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Needless to say, this PR addresses all these points. For context, as far as my
understanding goes, the main advantage of skipping inner unsafe blocks was that
a test case like
```rs
fn top_level_used() {
unsafe {
unsf();
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
should generate some warning because there’s redundant nested `unsafe`, however
every single `unsafe` block _does_ contain some statement that uses it. Of course
this PR doesn’t aim change the warnings on this kind of code example, because
the current behavior, warning on all the inner `unsafe` blocks, makes sense in this case.
As mentioned, during MIR building all the unsafe blocks *are* kept now, and usage
is attributed to them. The way to still generate a warning like
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:11:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsf();
11 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:12:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
12 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:13:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
13 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
in this case is by emitting a `unused_unsafe` warning for all of the `unsafe`
blocks that are _within a **used** unsafe block_.
The previous code had a little HIR traversal already anyways to collect a set of
all the unsafe blocks (in order to afterwards determine which ones are unused
afterwards). This PR uses such a traversal to do additional things including logic
like _always_ warn for an `unsafe` block that’s inside of another **used**
unsafe block. The traversal is expanded to include nested closures in the same go,
this simplifies a lot of things.
The whole logic around `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` is a little complicated, there’s
some test cases of corner-cases in this PR. (The implementation involves
differentiating between whether a used unsafe block was used exclusively by
operations where `allow(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)` was active.) The main goal was
to make sure that code should compile successfully if all the `unused_unsafe`-warnings
are addressed _simultaneously_ (by removing the respective `unsafe` blocks)
no matter how complicated the patterns of `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` being
disallowed and allowed throughout the function are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One noteworthy design decision I took here: An `unsafe` block
with `allow(unused_unsafe)` **is considered used** for the purposes of
linting about redundant contained unsafe blocks. So while
```rs
fn granularity() {
unsafe { //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
warns for the outer `unsafe` block,
```rs
fn top_level_ignored() {
#[allow(unused_unsafe)]
unsafe {
#[deny(unused_unsafe)]
{
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
}
}
}
```
warns on the inner ones.
Move ty::print methods to Drop-based scope guards
Primary goal is reducing codegen of the TLS access for each closure, which shaves ~3 seconds of bootstrap time over rustc as a whole.
This was largely just caching the shard value at this point, which is not
particularly useful -- in the use sites the key was being hashed nearby anyway.
Allow inlining of `ensure_sufficient_stack()`
This functions is monomorphized a lot and allowing the compiler to inline it improves instructions count and max RSS significantly in my local tests.
Extend uninhabited enum variant branch elimination to also affect fallthrough
The `uninhabited_enum_branching` mir opt eliminates branches on variants where the data is uninhabited. This change extends this pass to also ensure that the `otherwise` case points to a trivially unreachable bb if all inhabited variants are present in the non-otherwise branches.
I believe it was `@scottmcm` who said that LLVM eliminates some of this information in its SimplifyCFG pass. This is unfortunate, but this change should still be at least a small improvement in principle (I don't think it will show up on any benchmarks)
Adopt let else in more places
Continuation of #89933, #91018, #91481, #93046, #93590, #94011.
I have extended my clippy lint to also recognize tuple passing and match statements. The diff caused by fixing it is way above 1 thousand lines. Thus, I split it up into multiple pull requests to make reviewing easier. This is the biggest of these PRs and handles the changes outside of rustdoc, rustc_typeck, rustc_const_eval, rustc_trait_selection, which were handled in PRs #94139, #94142, #94143, #94144.
Fix pretty printing of enums without variants
92d20c4aad removed no-variants special case from `try_destructure_const` with expectation that this case would be handled gracefully when `read_discriminant` returns an error.
Alas in that case `read_discriminant` succeeds while returning a non-existing variant, so the special case is still necessary.
Fixes#94073.
r? ````@oli-obk````
Guard against unwinding in cleanup code
Currently the only safe guard we have against double unwind is the panic count (which is local to Rust). When double unwinds indeed happen (e.g. C++ exception + Rust panic, or two C++ exceptions), then the second unwind actually goes through and the first unwind is leaked. This can cause UB. cc rust-lang/project-ffi-unwind#6
E.g. given the following C++ code:
```c++
extern "C" void foo() {
throw "A";
}
extern "C" void execute(void (*fn)()) {
try {
fn();
} catch(...) {
}
}
```
This program is well-defined to terminate:
```c++
struct dtor {
~dtor() noexcept(false) {
foo();
}
};
void a() {
dtor a;
dtor b;
}
int main() {
execute(a);
return 0;
}
```
But this Rust code doesn't catch the double unwind:
```rust
extern "C-unwind" {
fn foo();
fn execute(f: unsafe extern "C-unwind" fn());
}
struct Dtor;
impl Drop for Dtor {
fn drop(&mut self) {
unsafe { foo(); }
}
}
extern "C-unwind" fn a() {
let _a = Dtor;
let _b = Dtor;
}
fn main() {
unsafe { execute(a) };
}
```
To address this issue, this PR adds an unwind edge to an abort block, so that the Rust example aborts. This is similar to how clang guards against double unwind (except clang calls terminate per C++ spec and we abort).
The cost should be very small; it's an additional trap instruction (well, two for now, since we use TrapUnreachable, but that's a different issue) for each function with landing pads; if LLVM gains support to encode "abort/terminate" info directly in LSDA like GCC does, then it'll be free. It's an additional basic block though so compile time may be worse, so I'd like a perf run.
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` label: F-c_unwind
92d20c4aad removed no-variants special
case from try_destructure_const with expectation that this case would be
handled gracefully when read_discriminant returns an error.
Alas in that case read_discriminant succeeds while returning a
non-existing variant, so the special case is still necessary.
Even if we emit metadata disabling branch protection, this metadata may
conflict with other modules (e.g. during LTO) that have different branch
protection metadata set.
This is an unstable flag and feature, so ideally the flag not being
specified should act as if the feature wasn't implemented in the first
place.
Additionally this PR also ensures we emit an error if
`-Zbranch-protection` is set on targets other than the supported
aarch64. For now the error is being output from codegen, but ideally it
should be moved to earlier in the pipeline before stabilization.
