Rename `rustc_abi::Abi` to `BackendRepr`
Remove the confabulation of `rustc_abi::Abi` with what "ABI" actually means by renaming it to `BackendRepr`, and rename `Abi::Aggregate` to `BackendRepr::Memory`. The type never actually represented how things are passed, as that has to have `PassMode` considered, at minimum, but rather it just is how we represented some things to the backend. This conflation arose because LLVM, the primary backend at the time, would lower certain IR forms using certain ABIs. Even that only somewhat was true, as it broke down when one ventured significantly afield of what is described by the System V AMD64 ABI either by using different architectures, ABI-modifying IR annotations, the same architecture **with different ISA extensions enabled**, or other... unexpected delights.
Unfortunately both names are still somewhat of a misnomer right now, as people have written code for years based on this misunderstanding. Still, their original names are even moreso, and for better or worse, this backend code hasn't received as much maintenance as the rest of the compiler, lately. Actually arriving at a correct end-state will simply require us to disentangle a lot of code in order to fix, much of it pointlessly repeated in several places. Thus this is not an "actual fix", just a way to deflect further misunderstandings.
The initial naming of "Abi" was an awful mistake, conveying wrong ideas
about how psABIs worked and even more about what the enum meant.
It was only meant to represent the way the value would be described to
a codegen backend as it was lowered to that intermediate representation.
It was never meant to mean anything about the actual psABI handling!
The conflation is because LLVM typically will associate a certain form
with a certain ABI, but even that does not hold when the special cases
that actually exist arise, plus the IR annotations that modify the ABI.
Reframe `rustc_abi::Abi` as the `BackendRepr` of the type, and rename
`BackendRepr::Aggregate` as `BackendRepr::Memory`. Unfortunately, due to
the persistent misunderstandings, this too is now incorrect:
- Scattered ABI-relevant code is entangled with BackendRepr
- We do not always pre-compute a correct BackendRepr that reflects how
we "actually" want this value to be handled, so we leave the backend
interface to also inject various special-cases here
- In some cases `BackendRepr::Memory` is a "real" aggregate, but in
others it is in fact using memory, and in some cases it is a scalar!
Our rustc-to-backend lowering code handles this sort of thing right now.
That will eventually be addressed by lifting duplicated lowering code
to either rustc_codegen_ssa or rustc_target as appropriate.
compiler: Add rustc_abi dependence to the compiler
Depend on rustc_abi in compiler crates that use it indirectly but have not yet taken on that dependency, and are not *significantly* entangled in my other PRs. This leaves an "excise rustc_target" step after the dust settles.
Depend on rustc_abi in compiler crates that use it indirectly but have
not yet taken on that dependency, and are not entangled in my other PRs.
This leaves an "excise rustc_target" step after the dust settles.
Rename macro `SmartPointer` to `CoercePointee`
As per resolution #129104 we will rename the macro to better reflect the technical specification of the feature and clarify the communication.
- `SmartPointer` is renamed to `CoerceReferent`
- `#[pointee]` attribute is renamed to `#[referent]`
- `#![feature(derive_smart_pointer)]` gate is renamed to `#![feature(derive_coerce_referent)]`.
- Any mention of `SmartPointer` in the file names are renamed accordingly.
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@nikomatsakis` `@Darksonn`
Use `Enabled{Lang,Lib}Feature` instead of n-tuples
Instead of passing around e.g. `(gate_name, attr_span, stable_since)` 3-tuples for enabled lang features or `(gate_name, attr_span)` 2-tuples for enabled lib features, use `Enabled{Lang,Lib}Feature` structs with named fields.
Also did some minor code-golfing of involved iterator chains to hopefully make them easier to follow.
Follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132098#issuecomment-2434523431 cc `@RalfJung.`
Then we can rename the _raw functions to drop their suffix, and instead
explicitly use is_stable_const_fn for the few cases where that is really what
you want.
Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125205 (Fixup Windows verbatim paths when used with the `include!` macro)
- #131049 (Validate args are correct for `UnevaluatedConst`, `ExistentialTraitRef`/`ExistentialProjection`)
- #131549 (Add a note for `?` on a `impl Future<Output = Result<..>>` in sync function)
- #131731 (add `TestFloatParse` to `tools.rs` for bootstrap)
- #131732 (Add doc(plugins), doc(passes), etc. to INVALID_DOC_ATTRIBUTES)
- #132006 (don't stage-off to previous compiler when CI rustc is available)
- #132022 (Move `cmp_in_dominator_order` out of graph dominator computation)
- #132033 (compiletest: Make `line_directive` return a `DirectiveLine`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
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.
Just because the code says it's OK does not mean that it actually is OK.
Nodes with the same total size were not sorted, their order relied on
hashmap iteration.
Add `&pin (mut|const) T` type position sugar
This adds parser support for `&pin mut T` and `&pin const T` references. These are desugared to `Pin<&mut T>` and `Pin<&T>` in the AST lowering phases.
This PR currently includes #130526 since that one is in the commit queue. Only the most recent commits (bd450027eb4a94b814a7dd9c0fa29102e6361149 and following) are new.
Tracking:
- #130494
r? `@compiler-errors`
Autodiff Upstreaming - enzyme frontend
This is an upstream PR for the `autodiff` rustc_builtin_macro that is part of the autodiff feature.
For the full implementation, see: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129175
**Content:**
It contains a new `#[autodiff(<args>)]` rustc_builtin_macro, as well as a `#[rustc_autodiff]` builtin attribute.
The autodiff macro is applied on function `f` and will expand to a second function `df` (name given by user).
It will add a dummy body to `df` to make sure it type-checks. The body will later be replaced by enzyme on llvm-ir level,
we therefore don't really care about the content. Most of the changes (700 from 1.2k) are in `compiler/rustc_builtin_macros/src/autodiff.rs`, which expand the macro. Nothing except expansion is implemented for now.
I have a fallback implementation for relevant functions in case that rustc should be build without autodiff support. The default for now will be off, although we want to flip it later (once everything landed) to on for nightly. For the sake of CI, I have flipped the defaults, I'll revert this before merging.
**Dummy function Body:**
The first line is an `inline_asm` nop to make inlining less likely (I have additional checks to prevent this in the middle end of rustc. If `f` gets inlined too early, we can't pass it to enzyme and thus can't differentiate it.
If `df` gets inlined too early, the call site will just compute this dummy code instead of the derivatives, a correctness issue. The following black_box lines make sure that none of the input arguments is getting optimized away before we replace the body.
**Motivation:**
The user facing autodiff macro can verify the user input. Then I write it as args to the rustc_attribute, so from here on I can know that these values should be sensible. A rustc_attribute also turned out to be quite nice to attach this information to the corresponding function and carry it till the backend.
This is also just an experiment, I expect to adjust the user facing autodiff macro based on user feedback, to improve usability.
As a simple example of what this will do, we can see this expansion:
From:
```
#[autodiff(df, Reverse, Duplicated, Const, Active)]
pub fn f1(x: &[f64], y: f64) -> f64 {
unimplemented!()
}
```
to
```
#[rustc_autodiff]
#[inline(never)]
pub fn f1(x: &[f64], y: f64) -> f64 {
::core::panicking::panic("not implemented")
}
#[rustc_autodiff(Reverse, Duplicated, Const, Active,)]
#[inline(never)]
pub fn df(x: &[f64], dx: &mut [f64], y: f64, dret: f64) -> f64 {
unsafe { asm!("NOP"); };
::core::hint::black_box(f1(x, y));
::core::hint::black_box((dx, dret));
::core::hint::black_box(f1(x, y))
}
```
I will add a few more tests once I figured out why rustc rebuilds every time I touch a test.
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124509
try-job: dist-x86_64-msvc
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
- fix for divergence
- fix error message
- fix another cranelift test
- fix some cranelift things
- don't set the NORETURN option for naked asm
- fix use of naked_asm! in doc comment
- fix use of naked_asm! in run-make test
- use `span_bug` in unreachable branch
