Turn ProjectionElem::Subtype into CastKind::Subtype
I noticed that drop elaboration can't, in general, handle `ProjectionElem::SubType`. It creates a disjoint move path that overlaps with other move paths. (`Subslice` does too, and I'm working on a different PR to make that special case less fragile.) If its skipped and treated as the same move path as its parent then `MovePath.place` has multiple possible projections. (It would probably make sense to remove all `Subtype` projections for the canonical place but it doesn't make sense to have this special case for a problem that doesn't actually occur in real MIR.)
The only reason this doesn't break is that `Subtype` is always the sole projection of the local its applied to. For the same reason, it works fine as a `CastKind` so I figured that makes more sense than documenting and validating this hidden invariant.
cc rust-lang/rust#112651, rust-lang/rust#133258
r? Icnr (bc you've been the main person dealing with `Subtype` it looks like)
Allow `&raw [mut | const]` for union field in safe code
fixesrust-lang/rust#141264
r? ``@Veykril``
Unresolved questions:
- [x] Any edge cases?
- [x] How this works with rust-analyzer (because all I've did is prevent compiler from emitting error in `&raw` context) (rust-lang/rust-analyzer#19867)
- [x] Should we allow `addr_of!` and `addr_of_mut!` as well? In current version they both (`&raw` and `addr_of!`) are allowed (They are the same)
- [x] Is chain of union fields is a safe? (Yes)
Clarified error note for usize range matching
Fixesrust-lang/rust#146476
This is kinda rough, but it gets the point across a little better and stays short.
This was done in #145740 and #145947. It is causing problems for people
using r-a on anything that uses the rustc-dev rustup package, e.g. Miri,
clippy.
This repository has lots of submodules and subtrees and various
different projects are carved out of pieces of it. It seems like
`[workspace.dependencies]` will just be more trouble than it's worth.
MIR dumping is a mess. There are lots of functions and entry points,
e.g. `dump_mir`, `dump_mir_with_options`, `dump_polonius_mir`,
`dump_mir_to_writer`. Also, it's crucial that `create_dump_file` is
never called without `dump_enabled` first being checked, but there is no
mechanism for ensuring this and it's hard to tell if it is satisfied on
all paths. (`dump_enabled` is checked twice on some paths, however!)
This commit introduces `MirWriter`, which controls the MIR writing, and
encapsulates the `extra_data` closure and `options`. Two existing
functions are now methods of this type. It sets reasonable defaults,
allowing the removal of many `|_, _| Ok(())` closures.
The commit also introduces `MirDumper`, which is layered on top of
`MirWriter`, and which manages the creation of the dump files,
encapsulating pass names, disambiguators, etc. Four existing functions
are now methods of this type.
- `MirDumper::new` will only succeed if dumps are enabled, and will
return `None` otherwise, which makes it impossible to dump when you
shouldn't.
- It also sets reasonable defaults for various things like
disambiguators, which means you no longer need to specify them in many
cases. When they do need to be specified, it's now done via setter
methods.
- It avoids some repetition. E.g. `dump_nll_mir` previously specifed the
pass name `"nll"` four times and the disambiguator `&0` three times;
now it specifies them just once, to put them in the `MirDumper`.
- For Polonius, the `extra_data` closure can now be specified earlier,
which avoids having to pass some arguments through some functions.
Add a method to dump MIR in the middle of MIR building
This makes it easier to debug issues with MIR building by inserting dump_for_debugging calls around the suspected code responsible for the bad MIR.
add a scope for `if let` guard temporaries and bindings
This fixes my concern with `if let` guard drop order, namely that the guard's bindings and temporaries were being dropped after their arm's pattern's bindings, instead of before (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/141295#issuecomment-2968975596). The guard's bindings and temporaries now live in a new scope, which extends until (but not past) the end of the arm, guaranteeing they're dropped before the arm's pattern's bindings.
This only introduces a new scope for match arms with guards. Perf results (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143376#issuecomment-3034922617) seemed to indicate there wasn't a significant hit to introduce a new scope on all match arms, but guard patterns (rust-lang/rust#129967) will likely benefit from only adding new scopes when necessary (with some patterns requiring multiple nested scopes).
Tracking issue for `if_let_guard`: rust-lang/rust#51114
Tests are adapted from examples by `@traviscross,` `@est31,` and myself on rust-lang/rust#141295.
coverage: Remove all unstable support for MC/DC instrumentation
Preliminary support for a partial implementation of “Modified Condition/Decision Coverage” instrumentation was added behind the unstable flag `-Zcoverage-options=mcdc` in 2024. These are the most substantial PRs involved:
- rust-lang/rust#123409
- rust-lang/rust#126733
At the time, I accepted these PRs with relatively modest scrutiny, because I did not want to stand in the way of independent work on MC/DC instrumentation. My hope was that ongoing work by interested contributors would lead to the code becoming clearer and more maintainable over time.
---
However, that MC/DC code has proven itself to be a major burden on overall maintenance of coverage instrumentation, and a major obstacle to other planned improvements, such as internal changes needed for proper support of macro expansion regions.
I have also become reluctant to accept any further MC/DC-related changes that would increase this burden.
That tension has resulted in an unhappy impasse. On one hand, the present MC/DC implementation is not yet complete, and shows little sign of being complete at an acceptable level of code quality in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, the continued existence of this partial MC/DC implementation is imposing serious maintenance burdens on every other aspect of coverage instrumentation, and is preventing some of the very improvements that would make it easier to accept expanded MC/DC support in the future.
While I know this will be disappointing to some, I think the healthy way forward is accept that I made the wrong call in accepting the current implementation, and to remove it entirely from the compiler.
lower pattern bindings in the order they're written and base drop order on primary bindings' order
To fixrust-lang/rust#142163, this PR does two things:
- Makes match arms base their drop order on the first sub-branch instead of the last sub-branch. Together with the second change, this makes bindings' drop order correspond to the relative order of when each binding first appears (i.e. the order of the "primary" bindings).
- Lowers pattern bindings in the order they're written (still treating the right-hand side of a ``@`` as coming before the binding on the left). In each sub-branch of a match arm, this is the order that would be obtained if the or-alternatives chosen in that sub-branch were inlined into the arm's pattern. This both affects drop order (making bindings in or-patterns not be dropped first) and fixes the issue in [this test](2a023bf80a/tests/ui/pattern/bindings-after-at/bind-by-copy-or-pat.rs) from rust-lang/rust#121716.
My approach to the second point is admittedly a bit trickier than may be necessary. To avoid passing around a counter when building `FlatPat`s, I've instead added just enough information to recover the original structure of the pattern's bindings from a `MatchTreeSubBranch`'s path through the `Candidate` tree. Some alternatives:
- We could use a counter, then sort bindings by their ordinals when making `MatchTreeSubBranch`es.
- I'd like to experiment with always merging sub-candidates and removing `test_remaining_match_pairs_after_or`; that would require lowering bindings and guards in a different way. That makes it a bigger change too, though, so I figure it might be simplest to start here.
- For a very big change, we could track which or-alternatives succeed at runtime to base drop order on the binding order in the particular alternatives matched.
This is a breaking change. It will need a crater run, language team sign-off, and likely updates to the Reference.
This will conflict with rust-lang/rust#143376 and probably also rust-lang/rust#143028, so they shouldn't be merged at the same time.
r? `@matthewjasper` or `@Nadrieril`
emit `StorageLive` and schedule `StorageDead` for `let`-`else`'s bindings after matching
This PR removes special handling of `let`-`else`, so that `StorageLive`s are emitted and `StorageDead`s are scheduled only after pattern-matching has succeeded. This means `StorageDead`s will no longer appear for all of its bindings on the `else` branch (because they're not live yet) and its drops&`StorageDead`s will happen together like they do elsewhere, rather than having all drops first, then all `StorageDead`s.
This fixesrust-lang/rust#142056, and is therefore a breaking change. I believe it'll need a crater run and a T-lang nomination/fcp thereafter. Specifically, this makes drop-checking slightly more restrictive for `let`-`else` to match the behavior of other variable binding forms. An alternative approach could be to change the relative order of drops and `StorageDead`s for other binding forms to make drop-checking more permissive, but making that consistent would be a significantly more involved change.
r? mir
cc `````@dingxiangfei2009`````
`````@rustbot````` label +T-lang +needs-crater
