Validate args are correct for `UnevaluatedConst`, `ExistentialTraitRef`/`ExistentialProjection`
For the `Existential*` ones, we have to do some adjustment to the args list to deal with the missing `Self` type, so we introduce a `debug_assert_existential_args_compatible` function to the interner as well.
Use shorthand field initialization syntax more aggressively in the compiler
Caught these when cleaning up #129344 and decided to run clippy to find the rest
By splitting the `FnSig` within `TyKind::FnPtr` into `FnSigTys` and
`FnHeader`, which can be packed more efficiently. This reduces the size
of the hot `TyKind` type from 32 bytes to 24 bytes on 64-bit platforms.
This reduces peak memory usage by a few percent on some benchmarks. It
also reduces cache misses and page faults similarly, though this doesn't
translate to clear cycles or wall-time improvements on CI.
Don't elaborate associated types with Sized bounds in `trait_object_ty` in cfi
The elaboration mechanism introduced in #123005 didn't filter for associated types with `Self: Sized` bounds, which since #112319 has excluded them from the object type.
Fixes#127881
cc `@maurer` `@rcvalle`
Avoid ref when using format! in compiler
Clean up a few minor refs in `format!` macro, as it has a performance cost. Apparently the compiler is unable to inline `format!("{}", &variable)`, and does a run-time double-reference instead (format macro already does one level referencing). Inlining format args prevents accidental `&` misuse.
See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/10851
Clean up a few minor refs in `format!` macro, as it has a performance cost. Apparently the compiler is unable to inline `format!("{}", &variable)`, and does a run-time double-reference instead (format macro already does one level referencing). Inlining format args prevents accidental `&` misuse.
Provided methods currently don't get type erasure performed on them
because they are not in an `impl` block. If we are instantiating a
method that is an associated item, but *not* in an impl block, treat it
as a provided method instead.
Most modules have such a blank line, but some don't. Inserting the blank
line makes it clearer that the `//!` comments are describing the entire
module, rather than the `use` declaration(s) that immediately follows.
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
Create the rustc_sanitizers crate and move the source code for the CFI
and KCFI sanitizers to it.
Co-authored-by: David Wood <agile.lion3441@fuligin.ink>
