Insert checks for enum discriminants when debug assertions are enabled
Similar to the existing null-pointer and alignment checks, this checks for valid enum discriminants on creation of enums through unsafe transmutes. Essentially this sanitizes patterns like the following:
```rust
let val: MyEnum = unsafe { std::mem::transmute<u32, MyEnum>(42) };
```
An extension of this check will be done in a follow-up that explicitly sanitizes for extern enum values that come into Rust from e.g. C/C++.
This check is similar to Miri's capabilities of checking for valid construction of enum values.
This PR is inspired by saethlin@'s PR
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104862. Thank you so much for keeping this code up and the detailed comments!
I also pair-programmed large parts of this together with vabr-g@.
r? `@saethlin`
Similar to the existing nullpointer and alignment checks, this checks
for valid enum discriminants on creation of enums through unsafe
transmutes. Essentially this sanitizes patterns like the following:
```rust
let val: MyEnum = unsafe { std::mem::transmute<u32, MyEnum>(42) };
```
An extension of this check will be done in a follow-up that explicitly
sanitizes for extern enum values that come into Rust from e.g. C/C++.
This check is similar to Miri's capabilities of checking for valid
construction of enum values.
This PR is inspired by saethlin@'s PR
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104862. Thank you so much for
keeping this code up and the detailed comments!
I also pair-programmed large parts of this together with vabr-g@.
Introduce the `MetaSized` and `PointeeSized` traits as supertraits of
`Sized` and initially implement it on everything that currently
implements `Sized` to isolate any changes that simply adding the
traits introduces.
Enable contracts for const functions
Use `const_eval_select!()` macro to enable contract checking only at runtime. The existing contract logic relies on closures, which are not supported in constant functions.
This commit also removes one level of indirection for ensures clauses since we no longer build a closure around the ensures predicate.
Resolves#136925
**Call-out:** This is still a draft PR since CI is broken due to a new warning message for unreachable code when the bottom of the function is indeed unreachable. It's not clear to me why the warning wasn't triggered before.
r? ```@compiler-errors```
Use `const_eval_select!()` macro to enable contract checking only at
runtime. The existing contract logic relies on closures,
which are not supported in constant functions.
This commit also removes one level of indirection for ensures clauses,
however, it currently has a spurious warning message when the bottom
of the function is unreachable.
#[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.
Implement unstable `new_range` feature
Switches `a..b`, `a..`, and `a..=b` to resolve to the new range types.
For rust-lang/rfcs#3550
Tracking issue #123741
also adds the re-export that was missed in the original implementation of `new_range_api`
Similar to how the alignment is already checked, this adds a check
for null pointer dereferences in debug mode. It is implemented similarly
to the alignment check as a MirPass.
This is related to a 2025H1 project goal for better UB checks in debug
mode: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-project-goals/pull/177.
`rustc_span::symbol` defines some things that are re-exported from
`rustc_span`, such as `Symbol` and `sym`. But it doesn't re-export some
closely related things such as `Ident` and `kw`. So you can do `use
rustc_span::{Symbol, sym}` but you have to do `use
rustc_span::symbol::{Ident, kw}`, which is inconsistent for no good
reason.
This commit re-exports `Ident`, `kw`, and `MacroRulesNormalizedIdent`,
and changes many `rustc_span::symbol::` qualifiers in `compiler/` to
`rustc_span::`. This is a 200+ net line of code reduction, mostly
because many files with two `use rustc_span` items can be reduced to
one.
Arbitrary self types v2: (unused) Receiver trait
This commit contains a new `Receiver` trait, which is the basis for the Arbitrary Self Types v2 RFC. This allows smart pointers to be method receivers even if they're not Deref.
This is currently unused by the compiler - a subsequent PR will start to use this for method resolution if the `arbitrary_self_types` feature gate is enabled. This is being landed first simply to make review simpler: if people feel this should all be in an atomic PR let me know.
This is a part of the arbitrary self types v2 project, https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3519https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874
r? `@wesleywiser`
Operations like is_aligned would return actively wrong results at compile-time,
i.e. calling it on the same pointer at compiletime and runtime could yield
different results. That's no good.
Instead of having hacks to make align_offset kind-of work in const-eval, just
use const_eval_select in the few places where it makes sense, which also ensures
those places are all aware they need to make sure the fallback behavior is
consistent.
This commit contains a new Receiver trait, which is the basis for the
Arbitrary Self Types v2 RFC. This allows smart pointers to be method
receivers even if they're not Deref.
This is currently unused by the compiler - a subsequent PR will start to
use this for method resolution if the arbitrary_self_types feature gate
is enabled. This is being landed first simply to make review
simpler: if people feel this should all be in an atomic PR let me know.
This is a part of the arbitrary self types v2 project,
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3519https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874
r? @wesleywiser
As part of the "arbitrary self types v2" project, we are going to
replace the current `Receiver` trait with a new mechanism based on a
new, different `Receiver` trait.
This PR renames the old trait to get it out the way. Naming is hard.
Options considered included:
* HardCodedReceiver (because it should only be used for things in the
standard library, and hence is sort-of hard coded)
* LegacyReceiver
* TargetLessReceiver
* OldReceiver
These are all bad names, but fortunately this will be temporary.
Assuming the new mechanism proceeds to stabilization as intended, the
legacy trait will be removed altogether.
Although we expect this trait to be used only in the standard library,
we suspect it may be in use elsehwere, so we're landing this change
separately to identify any surprising breakages.
It's known that this trait is used within the Rust for Linux project; a
patch is in progress to remove their dependency.
This is a part of the arbitrary self types v2 project,
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3519https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874
r? @wesleywiser
Implement `needs_async_drop` in rustc and optimize async drop glue
This PR expands on #121801 and implements `Ty::needs_async_drop` which works almost exactly the same as `Ty::needs_drop`, which is needed for #123948.
Also made compiler's async drop code to look more like compiler's regular drop code, which enabled me to write an optimization where types which do not use `AsyncDrop` can simply forward async drop glue to `drop_in_place`. This made size of the async block from the [async_drop test](67980dd6fb/tests/ui/async-await/async-drop.rs) to decrease by 12%.
It's a macro that just creates an enum with a `from_u32` method. It has
two arms. One is unused and the other has a single use.
This commit inlines that single use and removes the whole macro. This
increases readability because we don't have two different macros
interacting (`enum_from_u32` and `language_item_table`).
weak lang items are not allowed to be #[track_caller]
For instance the panic handler will be called via this import
```rust
extern "Rust" {
#[lang = "panic_impl"]
fn panic_impl(pi: &PanicInfo<'_>) -> !;
}
```
A `#[track_caller]` would add an extra argument and thus make this the wrong signature.
The 2nd commit is a consistency rename; based on the docs [here](https://doc.rust-lang.org/unstable-book/language-features/lang-items.html) and [here](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/lang-items.html) I figured "lang item" is more widely used. (In the compiler output, "lang item" and "language item" seem to be pretty even.)
Add `Ord::cmp` for primitives as a `BinOp` in MIR
Update: most of this OP was written months ago. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118310#issuecomment-2016940014 below for where we got to recently that made it ready for review.
---
There are dozens of reasonable ways to implement `Ord::cmp` for integers using comparison, bit-ops, and branches. Those differences are irrelevant at the rust level, however, so we can make things better by adding `BinOp::Cmp` at the MIR level:
1. Exactly how to implement it is left up to the backends, so LLVM can use whatever pattern its optimizer best recognizes and cranelift can use whichever pattern codegens the fastest.
2. By not inlining those details for every use of `cmp`, we drastically reduce the amount of MIR generated for `derive`d `PartialOrd`, while also making it more amenable to MIR-level optimizations.
Having extremely careful `if` ordering to μoptimize resource usage on broadwell (#63767) is great, but it really feels to me like libcore is the wrong place to put that logic. Similarly, using subtraction [tricks](https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#CopyIntegerSign) (#105840) is arguably even nicer, but depends on the optimizer understanding it (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/73417) to be practical. Or maybe [bitor is better than add](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/representing-in-ir/67369/2?u=scottmcm)? But maybe only on a future version that [has `or disjoint` support](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-add-or-disjoint-flag/75036?u=scottmcm)? And just because one of those forms happens to be good for LLVM, there's no guarantee that it'd be the same form that GCC or Cranelift would rather see -- especially given their very different optimizers. Not to mention that if LLVM gets a spaceship intrinsic -- [which it should](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Suboptimal.20inlining.20in.20std.20function.20.60binary_search.60/near/404250586) -- we'll need at least a rustc intrinsic to be able to call it.
As for simplifying it in Rust, we now regularly inline `{integer}::partial_cmp`, but it's quite a large amount of IR. The best way to see that is with 8811efa88b (diff-d134c32d028fbe2bf835fef2df9aca9d13332dd82284ff21ee7ebf717bfa4765R113) -- I added a new pre-codegen MIR test for a simple 3-tuple struct, and this PR change it from 36 locals and 26 basic blocks down to 24 locals and 8 basic blocks. Even better, as soon as the construct-`Some`-then-match-it-in-same-BB noise is cleaned up, this'll expose the `Cmp == 0` branches clearly in MIR, so that an InstCombine (#105808) can simplify that to just a `BinOp::Eq` and thus fix some of our generated code perf issues. (Tracking that through today's `if a < b { Less } else if a == b { Equal } else { Greater }` would be *much* harder.)
---
r? `@ghost`
But first I should check that perf is ok with this
~~...and my true nemesis, tidy.~~
