Use undef for uninitialized bytes in constants
Fixes#83657
This generates good code when the const is fully uninit, e.g.
```rust
#[no_mangle]
pub const fn fully_uninit() -> MaybeUninit<[u8; 10]> {
const M: MaybeUninit<[u8; 10]> = MaybeUninit::uninit();
M
}
```
generates
```asm
fully_uninit:
ret
```
as you would expect.
There is no improvement, however, when it's partially uninit, e.g.
```rust
pub struct PartiallyUninit {
x: u64,
y: MaybeUninit<[u8; 10]>
}
#[no_mangle]
pub const fn partially_uninit() -> PartiallyUninit {
const X: PartiallyUninit = PartiallyUninit { x: 0xdeadbeefcafe, y: MaybeUninit::uninit() };
X
}
```
generates
```asm
partially_uninit:
mov rax, rdi
mov rcx, qword ptr [rip + .L__unnamed_1+16]
mov qword ptr [rdi + 16], rcx
movups xmm0, xmmword ptr [rip + .L__unnamed_1]
movups xmmword ptr [rdi], xmm0
ret
.L__unnamed_1:
.asciz "\376\312\357\276\255\336\000"
.zero 16
.size .L__unnamed_1, 24
```
which copies a bunch of zeros in place of the undef bytes, the same as before this change.
Edit: generating partially-undef constants isn't viable at the moment anyways due to #84565, so it's disabled
Use if-let guards in the codebase and various other pattern cleanups
Dogfooding if-let guards as experimentation for the feature.
Tracking issue #51114. Conflicts with #87937.
Normalize projections under binders
Fixes#70243Fixes#70120Fixes#62529Fixes#87219
Issues to followup on after (probably fixed, but no test added here):
#76956#56556#79207#85636
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Use custom wrap-around type instead of RangeInclusive
Two reasons:
1. More memory is allocated than necessary for `valid_range` in `Scalar`. The range is not used as an iterator and `exhausted` is never used.
2. `contains`, `count` etc. methods in `RangeInclusive` are doing very unhelpful(and dangerous!) things when used as a wrap-around range. - In general this PR wants to limit potentially confusing methods, that have a low probability of working.
Doing a local perf run, every metric shows improvement except for instructions.
Max-rss seem to have a very consistent improvement.
Sorry - newbie here, probably doing something wrong.
Remove `Session.used_attrs` and move logic to `CheckAttrVisitor`
Instead of updating global state to mark attributes as used,
we now explicitly emit a warning when an attribute is used in
an unsupported position. As a side effect, we are to emit more
detailed warning messages (instead of just a generic "unused" message).
`Session.check_name` is removed, since its only purpose was to mark
the attribute as used. All of the callers are modified to use
`Attribute.has_name`
Additionally, `AttributeType::AssumedUsed` is removed - an 'assumed
used' attribute is implemented by simply not performing any checks
in `CheckAttrVisitor` for a particular attribute.
We no longer emit unused attribute warnings for the `#[rustc_dummy]`
attribute - it's an internal attribute used for tests, so it doesn't
mark sense to treat it as 'unused'.
With this commit, a large source of global untracked state is removed.
Trait upcasting coercion (part 3)
By using separate candidates for each possible choice, this fixes type-checking issues in previous commits.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Instead of updating global state to mark attributes as used,
we now explicitly emit a warning when an attribute is used in
an unsupported position. As a side effect, we are to emit more
detailed warning messages (instead of just a generic "unused" message).
`Session.check_name` is removed, since its only purpose was to mark
the attribute as used. All of the callers are modified to use
`Attribute.has_name`
Additionally, `AttributeType::AssumedUsed` is removed - an 'assumed
used' attribute is implemented by simply not performing any checks
in `CheckAttrVisitor` for a particular attribute.
We no longer emit unused attribute warnings for the `#[rustc_dummy]`
attribute - it's an internal attribute used for tests, so it doesn't
mark sense to treat it as 'unused'.
With this commit, a large source of global untracked state is removed.
Refactor fallback code to prepare for never type
This PR contains cherry-picks of some of `@nikomatsakis's` work from #79366, and shouldn't (AFAICT) represent any change in behavior. However, the refactoring is good regardless of the never type work being landed, and will reduce the size of those eventual PR(s) (and rebase pain).
I am not personally an expert on this code, and the commits are essentially 100% `@nikomatsakis's,` but they do seem reasonable to me by my understanding. Happy to edit with review, of course. Commits are best reviewed in sequence rather than all together.
r? `@jackh726` perhaps?
