miri ABI compatibility check: accept u32 and i32
If only the sign differs, then surely these types are compatible. (We do still check that `arg_ext` is the same, just in case.)
Also I made it so that the ABI check must *imply* that size and alignment are the same, but it doesn't actively check that itself. With how crazy ABI constraints get, having equal size and align really shouldn't be used as a signal for anything I think...
Add a new `compare_bytes` intrinsic instead of calling `memcmp` directly
As discussed in #113435, this lets the backends be the place that can have the "don't call the function if n == 0" logic, if it's needed for the target. (I didn't actually *add* those checks, though, since as I understood it we didn't actually need them on known targets?)
Doing this also let me make it `const` (unstable), which I don't think `extern "C" fn memcmp` can be.
cc `@RalfJung` `@Amanieu`
Add documentation to has_deref
Documentation of `has_deref` needed some polish to be more clear about where it should be used and what's it's purpose.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114401
r? `@RalfJung`
const validation: point at where we found a pointer but expected an integer
Instead of validation just printing "unable to turn pointer into bytes", make this a regular validation error that says where in the value the bad pointer was found. Also distinguish "expected integer, got pointer" from "expected pointer, got partial pointer or mix of pointers".
To avoid duplicating things too much I refactored the diagnostics for validity a bit, so that "got uninit, expected X" and "got pointer, expected X" can share the "X" part. Also all the errors emitted for validation are now grouped under `const_eval_validation` so that they are in a single group in the ftl file.
r? `@oli-obk`
Miri: fix error on dangling pointer inbounds offset
We used to claim that the pointer was "dereferenced", but that is just not true.
Can be reviewed commit-by-commit. The first commit is an unrelated rename that didn't seem worth splitting into its own PR.
r? `@oli-obk`
clarify MIR uninit vs LLVM undef/poison
In [this LLVM discussion](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-load-instruction-uninitialized-memory-semantics/67481) I learned that mapping our uninitialized memory in MIR to poison in LLVM would be quite problematic due to the lack of a byte type. I am not sure where to write down this insight but this seems like a reasonable start.
miri will report an UB when calling a function that has a `#[target_feature(enable = ...)]` attribute is called and the required feature is not available.
"Available features" are the same that `is_x86_feature_detected!` (or equivalent) reports to be available during miri execution (which can be enabled or disabled with the `-C target-feature` flag).
Rename `adjustment::PointerCast` and variants using it to `PointerCoercion`
It makes it sounds like the `ExprKind` and `Rvalue` are supposed to represent all pointer related casts, when in reality their just used to share a little enum variants. Make it clear there these are only coercions and that people who see this and think "why are so many pointer related casts not in these variants" aren't insane.
This enum was added in #59987. I'm not sure whether the variant sharing is actually worth it, but this at least makes it less confusing.
r? oli-obk
It makes it sound like the `ExprKind` and `Rvalue` are supposed to represent all pointer related
casts, when in reality their just used to share a some enum variants. Make it clear there these
are only coercion to make it clear why only some pointer related "casts" are in the enum.
Move `TyCtxt::mk_x` to `Ty::new_x` where applicable
Part of rust-lang/compiler-team#616
turns out there's a lot of places we construct `Ty` this is a ridiculously huge PR :S
r? `@oli-obk`
- Switch TypeId to 128 bits
- Hack around the fact that tracing-subscriber dislikes how TypeId is hashed
- Remove lowering of type_id128 from rustc_codegen_llvm
- Remove unnecessary `type_id128` intrinsic (just change return type of `type_id`)
- Only hash the lower 64 bits of the TypeId
- Reword comment
Replace const eval limit by a lint and add an exponential backoff warning
The lint triggers at the first power of 2 that comes after 1 million function calls or traversed back-edges (takes less than a second on usual programs). After the first emission, an unsilenceable warning is repeated at every following power of 2 terminators, causing it to get reported less and less the longer the evaluation runs.
cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval`
fixes#93481closes#67217
When constant evaluation fails because its MIR is tainted by errors,
suppress note indicating that erroneous constant was used, since those
errors have to be fixed regardless of the constant being used or not.
Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
Don't validate constants in const propagation
Validation is neither necessary nor desirable.
The constant validation is already omitted at mir-opt-level >= 3, so there there are not changes in MIR test output (the propagation of invalid constants is covered by an existing test in tests/mir-opt/const_prop/invalid_constant.rs).
They're semantically the same, so this means the backends don't need to handle the intrinsic and means fewer MIR basic blocks in pointer arithmetic code.
Evaluate place expression in `PlaceMention`
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102256 introduces a `PlaceMention(place)` MIR statement which keep trace of `let _ = place` statements from surface rust, but without semantics.
This PR proposes to change the behaviour of `let _ =` patterns with respect to the borrow-checker to verify that the bound place is live.
Specifically, consider this code:
```rust
let _ = {
let a = 5;
&a
};
```
This passes borrowck without error on stable. Meanwhile, replacing `_` by `_: _` or `_p` errors with "error[E0597]: `a` does not live long enough", [see playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=c448d25a7c205dc95a0967fe96bccce8).
This PR *does not* change how `_` patterns behave with respect to initializedness: it remains ok to bind a moved-from place to `_`.
The relevant test is `tests/ui/borrowck/let_underscore_temporary.rs`. Crater check found no regression.
For consistency, this PR changes miri to evaluate the place found in `PlaceMention`, and report eventual dangling pointers found within it.
r? `@RalfJung`
Add offset_of! macro (RFC 3308)
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3308 (tracking issue #106655) by adding the built in macro `core::mem::offset_of`. Two of the future possibilities are also implemented:
* Nested field accesses (without array indexing)
* DST support (for `Sized` fields)
I wrote this a few months ago, before the RFC merged. Now that it's merged, I decided to rebase and finish it.
cc `@thomcc` (RFC author)
Encode hashes as bytes, not varint
In a few places, we store hashes as `u64` or `u128` and then apply `derive(Decodable, Encodable)` to the enclosing struct/enum. It is more efficient to encode hashes directly than try to apply some varint encoding. This PR adds two new types `Hash64` and `Hash128` which are produced by `StableHasher` and replace every use of storing a `u64` or `u128` that represents a hash.
Distribution of the byte lengths of leb128 encodings, from `x build --stage 2` with `incremental = true`
Before:
```
( 1) 373418203 (53.7%, 53.7%): 1
( 2) 196240113 (28.2%, 81.9%): 3
( 3) 108157958 (15.6%, 97.5%): 2
( 4) 17213120 ( 2.5%, 99.9%): 4
( 5) 223614 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 9
( 6) 216262 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 10
( 7) 15447 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 5
( 8) 3633 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 19
( 9) 3030 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 8
( 10) 1167 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 18
( 11) 1032 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 7
( 12) 1003 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 6
( 13) 10 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 16
( 14) 10 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 17
( 15) 5 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 12
( 16) 4 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 14
```
After:
```
( 1) 372939136 (53.7%, 53.7%): 1
( 2) 196240140 (28.3%, 82.0%): 3
( 3) 108014969 (15.6%, 97.5%): 2
( 4) 17192375 ( 2.5%,100.0%): 4
( 5) 435 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 5
( 6) 83 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 18
( 7) 79 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 10
( 8) 50 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 9
( 9) 6 ( 0.0%,100.0%): 19
```
The remaining 9 or 10 and 18 or 19 are `u64` and `u128` respectively that have the high bits set. As far as I can tell these are coming primarily from `SwitchTargets`.
Various minor Idx-related tweaks
Nothing particularly exciting here, but a couple of things I noticed as I was looking for more index conversions to simplify.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/606
r? `@WaffleLapkin`
