Remove `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_ptr]` and add `#![feature(const_fn_fn_ptr_basics)]`
`rustc_allow_const_fn_ptr` was a hack to work around the lack of an escape hatch for the "min `const fn`" checks in const-stable functions. Now that we have co-opted `allow_internal_unstable` for this purpose, we no longer need a bespoke attribute.
Now this functionality is gated under `const_fn_fn_ptr_basics` (how concise!), and `#[allow_internal_unstable(const_fn_fn_ptr_basics)]` replaces `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_ptr]`. `const_fn_fn_ptr_basics` allows function pointer types to appear in the arguments and locals of a `const fn` as well as function pointer casts to be performed inside a `const fn`. Both of these were allowed in constants and statics already. Notably, this does **not** allow users to invoke function pointers in a const context. Presumably, we will use a nicer name for that (`const_fn_ptr`?).
r? @oli-obk
diag: improve closure/generic parameter mismatch
Fixes#51154.
This PR improves the diagnostic when a type parameter is expected and a closure is found, noting that each closure has a distinct type and therefore could not always match the caller-chosen type of the parameter.
r? @estebank
This was a hack to work around the lack of an escape hatch for the "min
`const fn`" checks in const-stable functions. Now that we have co-opted
`allow_internal_unstable` for this purpose, we no longer need the
bespoke attribute.
Return values up to 128 bits in registers
This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/26494#issuecomment-619506345 by making Rust's default ABI pass return values up to 128 bits in size in registers, just like the System V ABI.
The result is that these methods from the comment linked above now generate the same code, making the Rust ABI as efficient as the `"C"` ABI:
```rust
pub struct Stats { x: u32, y: u32, z: u32, }
pub extern "C" fn sum_c(a: &Stats, b: &Stats) -> Stats {
return Stats {x: a.x + b.x, y: a.y + b.y, z: a.z + b.z };
}
pub fn sum_rust(a: &Stats, b: &Stats) -> Stats {
return Stats {x: a.x + b.x, y: a.y + b.y, z: a.z + b.z };
}
```
```asm
sum_rust:
movl (%rsi), %eax
addl (%rdi), %eax
movl 4(%rsi), %ecx
addl 4(%rdi), %ecx
movl 8(%rsi), %edx
addl 8(%rdi), %edx
shlq $32, %rcx
orq %rcx, %rax
retq
```
Ignore ZST offsets when deciding whether to use Scalar/ScalarPair layout
This is important because Scalar/ScalarPair layout previously would not be used if any ZST had nonzero offset.
For example, before this change, only `((), u128)` would be laid out like `u128`, not `(u128, ())`.
Fixes#63244
emit errors during AbstractConst building
There changes are currently still untested, so I don't expect this to pass CI 😆
It seems to me like this is the direction we want to go in, though we didn't have too much of a discussion about this.
r? @oli-obk
