Check that RPITs constrained by a recursive call in a closure are compatible
Fixes#99073
Adapts a similar visitor pattern to `find_opaque_ty_constraints` (that we use to check TAITs), but with some changes:
0. Only walk the "OnlyBody" children, instead of all items in the RPIT's defining scope
1. Only walk through the body's children if we found a constraining usage
2. Don't actually do any inference, just do a comparison and error if they're mismatched
----
r? `@oli-obk` -- you know all this impl-trait stuff best... is this the right approach? I can explain the underlying issue better if you'd like, in case that might reveal a better solution. Not sure if it's possible to gather up the closure's defining usages of the RPIT while borrowck'ing the outer function, that might be a better place to put this check...
codegen: use new {re,de,}allocator annotations in llvm
This obviates the patch that teaches LLVM internals about
_rust_{re,de}alloc functions by putting annotations directly in the IR
for the optimizer.
The sole test change is required to anchor FileCheck to the body of the
`box_uninitialized` method, so it doesn't see the `allocalign` on
`__rust_alloc` and get mad about the string `alloca` showing up. Since I
was there anyway, I added some checks on the attributes to prove the
right attributes got set.
r? `@nikic`
This obviates the patch that teaches LLVM internals about
_rust_{re,de}alloc functions by putting annotations directly in the IR
for the optimizer.
The sole test change is required to anchor FileCheck to the body of the
`box_uninitialized` method, so it doesn't see the `allocalign` on
`__rust_alloc` and get mad about the string `alloca` showing up. Since I
was there anyway, I added some checks on the attributes to prove the
right attributes got set.
While we're here, we also emit allocator attributes on
__rust_alloc_zeroed. This should allow LLVM to perform more
optimizations for zeroed blocks, and probably fixes#90032. [This
comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/24194#issuecomment-308791157)
mentions "weird UB-like behaviour with bitvec iterators in
rustc_data_structures" so we may need to back this change out if things
go wrong.
The new test cases require LLVM 15, so we copy them into LLVM
14-supporting versions, which we can delete when we drop LLVM 14.
Remove some explicit `self.infcx` for `FnCtxt`, which already derefs into `InferCtxt`
The use of `self.infcx.method_on_infcx` vs `self.method_on_infcx` when `self` is a `FnCtxt` is a bit inconsistent, so I'm moving some `self.infcx` usages I found to just use autoderef
Slightly improve mismatched GAT where clause error
This makes the error reporting a bit more standardized between `where` on GATs and functions.
cc #99206 (`@BoxyUwU),` don't want to mark this as as "fixed" because they're still not perfect, but this is still an improvement IMO so I want to land it incrementally.
regarding "consider adding where clause to trait definition", we don't actually do that for methods as far as i can tell? i could file an issue to look into that maybe.
Use `VecMap::get` in `ConstraintLocator::check`
Also rename the `def_id` param to `item_def_id` because that's easily confused with `self.def_id` (which is the opaque ty did).
Add support for LLVM ShadowCallStack.
LLVMs ShadowCallStack provides backward edge control flow integrity protection by using a separate shadow stack to store and retrieve a function's return address.
LLVM currently only supports this for AArch64 targets. The x18 register is used to hold the pointer to the shadow stack, and therefore this only works on ABIs which reserve x18. Further details are available in the [LLVM ShadowCallStack](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ShadowCallStack.html) docs.
# Usage
`-Zsanitizer=shadow-call-stack`
# Comments/Caveats
* Currently only enabled for the aarch64-linux-android target
* Requires the platform to define a runtime to initialize the shadow stack, see the [LLVM docs](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ShadowCallStack.html) for more detail.
Fix hack that remaps env constness.
WARNING: might have perf implications.
Are there any more problems with having a constness in the `ParamEnv` now? :)
r? `@oli-obk`
Improve suggestions for returning binding
Fixes#99525
Also reworks the cause codes for match and if a bit, I think cleaning them up in a positive way.
We no longer need to call `could_remove_semicolon` in successful code, which might save a few cycles?
make vtable pointers entirely opaque
This implements the scheme discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/338: vtable pointers should be considered entirely opaque and not even readable by Rust code, similar to function pointers.
- We have a new kind of `GlobalAlloc` that symbolically refers to a vtable.
- Miri uses that kind of allocation when generating a vtable.
- The codegen backends, upon encountering such an allocation, call `vtable_allocation` to obtain an actually dataful allocation for this vtable.
- We need new intrinsics to obtain the size and align from a vtable (for some `ptr::metadata` APIs), since direct accesses are UB now.
I had to touch quite a bit of code that I am not very familiar with, so some of this might not make much sense...
r? `@oli-obk`
move `considering_regions` to the infcx
it seems weird to prove some obligations which constrain inference vars while ignoring regions in a context which considers regions. This is especially weird because even for a fulfillment context with ignored regions, we still added region outlives bounds when directly relating regions.
tbh our handling of regions is still very weird, but at least this is a step in the right direction imo.
r? rust-lang/types
Only compile #[used] as llvm.compiler.used for ELF targets
This returns `#[used]` to how it worked prior to the LLVM 13 update. The intention is not that this is a stable promise.
I'll add tests later today. The tests will test things that we don't actually promise, though.
It's a deliberately small patch, mostly comments. And assuming it's reviewed and lands in time, IMO it should at least be considered for uplifting to beta (so that it can be in 1.59), as the change broke many crates in the ecosystem, even if they are relying on behavior that is not guaranteed.
# Background
LLVM has two ways of preventing removal of an unused variable: `llvm.compiler.used`, which must be present in object files, but allows the linker to remove the value, and `llvm.used` which is supposed to apply to the linker as well, if possible.
Prior to LLVM 13, `llvm.used` and `llvm.compiler.used` were the same on ELF targets, although they were different elsewhere. Prior to our update to LLVM 13, we compiled `#[used]` using `llvm.used` unconditionally, even though we only ever promised behavior like `llvm.compiler.used`.
In LLVM 13, ELF targets gained some support for preventing linker removal of `llvm.used` via the SHF_RETAIN section flag. This has some compatibility issues though: Concretely: some older versions `ld.gold` (specifically ones prior to v2.36, released in Jan 2021) had a bug where it would fail to place a `#[used] #[link_section = ".init_array"]` static in between `__init_array_start`/`__init_array_end`, leading to code that does this failing to run a static constructor. This is technically not a thing we guarantee will work, is a common use case, and is needed in `libstd` (for example, to get access to `std::env::args()` even if Rust does not control `main`, such as when in a `cdylib` crate).
As a result, when updating to LLVM 13, we unconditionally switched to using `llvm.compiler.used`, which mirror the guarantees we make for `#[used]` and doesn't require the latest ld.gold. Unfortunately, this happened to break quite a bit of things in the ecosystem, as non-ELF targets had come to rely on `#[used]` being slightly stronger. In particular, there are cases where it will even break static constructors on these targets[^initinit] (and in fact, breaks way more use cases, as Mach-O uses special sections as an interface to the OS/linker/loader in many places).
As a result, we only switch to `llvm.compiler.used` on ELF[^elfish] targets. The rationale here is:
1. It is (hopefully) identical to the semantics we used prior to the LLVM13 update as prior to that update we unconditionally used `llvm.used`, but on ELF `llvm.used` was the same as `llvm.compiler.used`.
2. It seems to be how Clang compiles this, and given that they have similar (but stronger) compatibility promises, that makes sense.
[^initinit]: For Mach-O targets: It is not always guaranteed that `__DATA,__mod_init_func` is a GC root if it does not have the `S_MOD_INIT_FUNC_POINTERS` flag which we cannot add. In most cases, when ld64 transformed this section into `__DATA_CONST,__mod_init_func` it gets applied, but it's not clear that that is intentional (let alone guaranteed), and the logic is complex enough that it probably happens sometimes, and people in the wild report it occurring.
[^elfish]: Actually, there's not a great way to tell if it's ELF, so I've approximated it.
This is pretty ad-hoc and hacky! We probably should have a firmer set of guarantees here, but this change should relax the pressure on coming up with that considerably, returning it to previous levels.
---
Unsure who should review so leaving it open, but for sure CC `@nikic`
Remove the unused StableSet and StableMap types from rustc_data_structures.
The current implementation is not "stable" in the same sense that `HashStable` and `StableHasher` are stable, i.e. across compilation sessions. So, in my opinion, it's better to remove those types (which are basically unused anyway) than to give the wrong impression that these are safe for incr. comp.
I plan to provide new "stable" collection types soon that can be used to replace `FxHashMap` and `FxHashSet` in query results (see [draft](69d03ac7a7)). It's unsound that `HashMap` and `HashSet` implement `HashStable` (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/98890 for a recent P-critical bug caused by this) -- so we should make some progress there.
Fix a numerical underflow in tuple wrap suggestion
Fixes#99482
I'm a clown, I rewrote the arg mismatch algo to use well-typed indices to avoid things like this, but then I added my own indexing bug, lol.
Formalize defining_use_anchor
This tackles issue #57961
Introduces new enum called `DefiningAnchor` that replaces `Option<LocalDefId>` of `defining_use_anchor`. Now every use of it is explicit and exhaustively matched, catching errors like one in the linked issue. This is not a perfect fix but it's a step in the right direction.
r? `@oli-obk`
Suggest returning local on "expected `ty`, found `()`" due to expr-less block
Putting this up for _initial_ review. Notably, this doesn't consider if the value has possibly been moved, or whether the type is `Copy`. It also provides a structured suggestion if there's one "preferred" binding that matches the type (i.e. one binding in the block or its parent), otherwise it just points them out if there's fewer than 4 of them.
Fixes#98177
r? `@estebank`
