Assert `FnDef` kind
Only found one bug, where we were using the variant def id rather than its ctor def id to make the `FnDef` for a `type_of`
r? fmease
Remove MIR unsafe check
Now that THIR unsafeck is enabled by default in stable I think we can remove MIR unsafeck entirely. This PR also removes safety information from MIR.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #122411 ( Provide cabi_realloc on wasm32-wasip2 by default )
- #123349 (Fix capture analysis for by-move closure bodies)
- #123359 (Link against libc++abi and libunwind as well when building LLVM wrappers on AIX)
- #123388 (use a consistent style for links)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Link against libc++abi and libunwind as well when building LLVM wrappers on AIX
Unlike `libc++.so` on Linux which is a linker script
```ld
INPUT(libc++.so.1 -lc++abi -lunwind)
```
AIX linker doesn't support such script, so `c++abi` and `unwind` have to be specified explicitly.
Fix capture analysis for by-move closure bodies
The check we were doing to figure out if a coroutine was borrowing from its parent coroutine-closure was flat-out wrong -- a misunderstanding of mine of the way that `tcx.closure_captures` represents its captures.
Fixes#123251 (the miri/ui test I added should more than cover that issue)
r? `@oli-obk` -- I recognize that this PR may be underdocumented, so please ask me what I should explain further.
Rename `UninhabitedEnumBranching` to `UnreachableEnumBranching`
Per [#120268](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120268#discussion_r1517492060), I rename `UninhabitedEnumBranching` to `UnreachableEnumBranching` .
I solved some nits to add some comments.
I adjusted the workaround restrictions. This should be useful for `a <= b` and `if let Some/Ok(v)`. For enum with few variants, `early-tailduplication` should not cause compile time overhead.
r? RalfJung
Avoid expanding to unstable internal method
Fixes#123156
Rather than expanding to `std::rt::begin_panic`, the expansion is now to `unreachable!()`. The resulting behavior is identical. A test that previously triggered the same error as #123156 has been added to ensure it does not regress.
r? compiler
rename ptr::from_exposed_addr -> ptr::with_exposed_provenance
As discussed on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/To.20expose.20or.20not.20to.20expose/near/427757066).
The old name, `from_exposed_addr`, makes little sense as it's not the address that is exposed, it's the provenance. (`ptr.expose_addr()` stays unchanged as we haven't found a better option yet. The intended interpretation is "expose the provenance and return the address".)
The new name nicely matches `ptr::without_provenance`.
Make inductive cycles always ambiguous
This makes inductive cycles always result in ambiguity rather than be treated like a stack-dependent error.
This has some interactions with specialization, and so breaks a few UI tests that I don't agree should've ever worked in the first place, and also breaks a handful of crates in a way that I don't believe is a problem.
On the bright side, it puts us in a better spot when it comes to eventually enabling coinduction everywhere.
## Results
This was cratered in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116494#issuecomment-2008657494, which boils down to two regressions:
* `lu_packets` - This code should have never compiled in the first place. More below.
* **ALL** other regressions are due to `commit_verify@0.11.0-beta.1` (edit: and `commit_verify@0.10.x`) - This actually seems to be fixed in version `0.11.0-beta.5`, which is the *most* up to date version, but it's still prerelease on crates.io so I don't think cargo ends up picking `beta.5` when building dependent crates.
### `lu_packets`
Firstly, this crate uses specialization, so I think it's automatically worth breaking. However, I've minimized [the regression](https://crater-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/pr-116494-3/try%23d614ed876e31a5f3ad1d0fbf848fcdab3a29d1d8/gh/lcdr.lu_packets/log.txt) to:
```rust
// Upstream crate
pub trait Serialize {}
impl Serialize for &() {}
impl<S> Serialize for &[S] where for<'a> &'a S: Serialize {}
// ----------------------------------------------------------------------- //
// Downstream crate
#![feature(specialization)]
#![allow(incomplete_features, unused)]
use upstream::Serialize;
trait Replica {
fn serialize();
}
impl<T> Replica for T {
default fn serialize() {}
}
impl<T> Replica for Option<T>
where
for<'a> &'a T: Serialize,
{
fn serialize() {}
}
```
Specifically this fails when computing the specialization graph for the `downstream` crate.
The code ends up cycling on `&[?0]: Serialize` when we equate `&?0 = &[?1]` during impl matching, which ends up needing to prove `&[?1]: Serialize`, which since cycles are treated like ambiguity, ends up in a **fatal overflow**. For some reason this requires two crates, squashing them into one crate doesn't work.
Side-note: This code is subtly order dependent. When minimizing, I ended up having the code start failing on `nightly` very easily after removing and reordering impls. This seems to me all the more reason to remove this behavior altogether.
## Side-note: Item Bounds (edit: this was fixed independently in #121123)
Due to the changes in #120584 where we now consider an alias's item bounds *and* all the item bounds of the alias's nested self type aliases, I've had to add e6b64c61941120f734657106ae2479d05b463197 which is a hack to make sure we're not eagerly normalizing bounds that have nothing to do with the predicate we're trying to solve, and which result in.
This is fixed in a more principled way in #121123.
---
r? lcnr for an initial review
CFI: Support non-general coroutines
Previously, we assumed all `ty::Coroutine` were general coroutines and attempted to generalize them through the `Coroutine` trait. Select appropriate traits for each kind of coroutine.
I have this marked as a draft because it currently only fixes async coroutines, and I think it make sense to try to fix gen/async gen coroutines before this is merged.
If the issue [mentioned](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123106#issuecomment-2030794213) in the original PR is actually affecting someone, we can land this as is to remedy it.
Check that nested statics in thread locals are duplicated per thread.
follow-up to #123310
cc ``@compiler-errors`` ``@RalfJung``
fwiw: I have no idea how thread local statics make that work under LLVM, and miri fails on this example, which I would have expected to be the correct behaviour.
Since the `#[thread_local]` attribute is just an internal implementation detail, I'm just going to start hard erroring on nested mutable statics in thread locals.
Make sure to insert `Sized` bound first into clauses list
#120323 made it so that we don't insert an implicit `Sized` bound whenever we see an *explicit* `Sized` bound. However, since the code that inserts implicit sized bounds puts the bound as the *first* in the list, that means that it had the **side-effect** of possibly meaning we check `Sized` *after* checking other trait bounds.
If those trait bounds result in ambiguity or overflow or something, it may change how we winnow candidates. (**edit: SEE** #123303) This is likely the cause for the regression in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123279#issuecomment-2028899598, since the impl...
```rust
impl<T: Job + Sized> AsJob for T { // <----- changing this to `Sized + Job` or just `Job` (which turns into `Sized + Job`) will FIX the issue.
}
```
...looks incredibly suspicious.
Fixes [after beta-backport] #123279.
Alternative is to revert #120323. I don't have a strong opinion about this, but think it may be nice to keep the diagnostic changes around.
De-LLVM the unchecked shifts [MCP#693]
This is just one part of the MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/693), but it's the one that IMHO removes the most noise from the standard library code.
Seems net simpler this way, since MIR already supported heterogeneous shifts anyway, and thus it's not more work for backends than before.
r? WaffleLapkin
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.~~
Adds support for both CFI and KCFI for attaching concrete and abstract
types to functions. KCFI does this through generation of `ReifyShim` on
any function pointer that could go in a vtable, and checking the
`ReifyReason` when emitting the instance. CFI does this by attaching
both the concrete and abstract type to every instance.
TypeID codegen tests are switched to be anchored on the left rather than
the right in order to allow emission of additional type attachments.
Fixes#115953
KCFI needs to be able to tell which kind of `ReifyShim` it is examining
in order to decide whether to use a concrete type (`FnPtr` case) or an
abstract case (`Vtable` case). You can *almost* tell this from context,
but there is one case where you can't - if a trait has a method which is
*not* `#[track_caller]`, with an impl that *is* `#[track_caller]`, both
the vtable and a function pointer created from that method will be
`ReifyShim(def_id)`.
Currently, the reason is optional to ensure no additional unique
`ReifyShim`s are added without KCFI on. However, the case in which an
extra `ReifyShim` is created is sufficiently rare that this may be worth
revisiting to reduce complexity.
Previously, we assumed all `ty::Coroutine` were general coroutines and
attempted to generalize them through the `Coroutine` trait. Select
appropriate traits for each kind of coroutine.
rustdoc: heavily simplify the synthesis of auto trait impls
`gd --numstat HEAD~2 HEAD src/librustdoc/clean/auto_trait.rs`
**+315 -705** 🟩🟥🟥🟥⬛
---
As outlined in issue #113015, there are currently 3[^1] large separate routines that “clean” `rustc_middle::ty` data types related to generics & predicates to rustdoc data types. Every single one has their own kinds of bugs. While I've patched a lot of bugs in each of the routines in the past, it's about time to unify them. This PR is only the first in a series. It completely **yanks** the custom “bounds cleaning” of mod `auto_trait` and reuses the routines found in mod `simplify`. As alluded to, `simplify` is also flawed but it's still more complete than `auto_trait`'s routines. [See also my review comment over at `tests/rustdoc/synthetic_auto/bounds.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123340#discussion_r1546900539).
This is preparatory work for rewriting “bounds cleaning” from scratch in follow-up PRs in order to finally [fix] #113015.
Apart from that, I've eliminated all potential sources of *instability* in the rendered output.
See also #119597. I'm pretty sure this fixes#119597.
This PR does not attempt to fix [any other issues related to synthetic auto trait impls](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AA-synthetic-impls%20label%3AA-auto-traits).
However, it's definitely meant to be a *stepping stone* by making `auto_trait` more contributor-friendly.
---
* Replace `FxHash{Map,Set}` with `FxIndex{Map,Set}` to guarantee a stable iteration order
* Or as a perf opt, `UnordSet` (a thin wrapper around `FxHashSet`) in cases where we never iterate over the set.
* Yes, we do make use of `swap_remove` but that shouldn't matter since all the callers are deterministic. It does make the output less “predictable” but it's still better than before. Ofc, I rely on `rustc_infer` being deterministic. I hope that holds.
* Utilizing `clean::simplify` over the custom “bounds cleaning” routines wipes out the last reference to `collect_referenced_late_bound_regions` in rustdoc (`simplify` uses `bound_vars`) which was a source of instability / unpredictability (cc #116388)
* Remove the types `RegionTarget` and `RegionDeps` from `librustdoc`. They were duplicates of the identical types found in `rustc`. Just import them from `rustc`. For some reason, they were duplicated when splitting `auto_trait` in two in #49711.
* Get rid of the useless “type namespace” `AutoTraitFinder` in `librustdoc`
* The struct only held a `DocContext`, it was over-engineered
* Turn the associated functions into free ones
* Eliminates rightward drift; increases legibility
* `rustc` also contains a useless `AutoTraitFinder` struct but I plan on removing that in a follow-up PR
* Rename a bunch of methods to be way more descriptive
* Eliminate `use super::*;`
* Lead to `clean/mod.rs` accumulating a lot of unnecessary imports
* Made `auto_traits` less modular
* Eliminate a custom `TypeFolder`: We can just use the rustc helper `fold_regions` which does that for us
I plan on adding extensive documentation to `librustdoc`'s `auto_trait` in follow-up PRs.
I don't want to do that in this PR because further refactoring & bug fix PRs may alter the overall structure of `librustdoc`'s & `rustc`'s `auto_trait` modules to a great degree. I'm slowly digging into the dark details of `rustc`'s `auto_trait` module again and once I have the full picture I will be able to provide proper docs.
---
While this PR does indeed touch `rustc`'s `auto_trait` — mostly tiny refactorings — I argue this PR doesn't need any compiler reviewers next to rustdoc ones since that module falls under the purview of rustdoc — it used to be part of `librustdoc` after all (#49711).
Sorry for not having split this into more commits. If you'd like me to I can try to split it into more atomic commits retroactively. However, I don't know if that would actually make reviewing easier. I think the best way to review this might just be to place the master version of `auto_trait` on the left of your screen and the patched one on the right, not joking.
r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
[^1]: Or even 4 depending on the way you're counting.
Only allow compiler_builtins to call LLVM intrinsics, not any link_name function
This is another case of accidental reliance on `inline(never)` like I rooted out in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118770. Without this PR, attempting to build some large programs with `-Zcross-crate-inline-threshold=yes` with a sysroot also compiled with that flag will result in linker errors like this:
```
= note: /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/cargo-installNrfN4T/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/release/deps/libcompiler_builtins-d2a9b69f4e45b883.rlib(compiler_builtins-d2a9b69f4e45b883.compiler_builtins.dbbc6c2ca970faa4-cgu.0.rcgu.o): in function `core::panicking::panic_fmt':
/home/ben/.rustup/toolchains/nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/rustlib/src/rust/library/core/src/panicking.rs:72:(.text.unlikely._ZN4core9panicking9panic_fmt17ha407cc99e97c942fE+0x31): undefined reference to `rust_begin_unwind'
```
With `-Zcross-crate-inline-threshold=yes` we can inline `panic_fmt` into `compiler_builtins`. Then we end up with a call to an upstream monomorphization, but one that has a `link_name` set. But unlike LLVM's magic intrinsic names, this link name is going to make it to the linker, and then we have a problem.
This logic looks scuffed, but also we're doing this in 4 other places. Don't know if that means it's good or bad.
1684a753db/compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift/src/abi/mod.rs (L386)1684a753db/compiler/rustc_ast_passes/src/feature_gate.rs (L306)1684a753db/compiler/rustc_codegen_ssa/src/codegen_attrs.rs (L609)1684a753db/compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc/src/declare.rs (L170)
