Rework definition of MIR phases to more closely reflect semantic concerns
Implements most of rust-lang/compiler-team#522 .
I tried my best to restrict this PR to the "core" parts of the MCP. In other words, this includes just enough changes to make the new definition of `MirPhase` make sense. That means there are a couple of FIXMEs lying around. Depending on what reviewers prefer, I can either fix them in this PR or send follow up PRs. There are also a couple other refactorings of the `rustc_mir_transform/src/lib.rs` file that I want to do in follow ups that I didn't leave explicit FIXMEs for.
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #95376 (Add `vec::Drain{,Filter}::keep_rest`)
- #100092 (Fall back when relating two opaques by substs in MIR typeck)
- #101019 (Suggest returning closure as `impl Fn`)
- #101022 (Erase late bound regions before comparing types in `suggest_dereferences`)
- #101101 (interpret: make read-pointer-as-bytes a CTFE-only error with extra information)
- #101123 (Remove `register_attr` feature)
- #101175 (Don't --bless in pre-push hook)
- #101176 (rustdoc: remove unused CSS selectors for `.table-display`)
- #101180 (Add another MaybeUninit array test with const)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
interpret: make read-pointer-as-bytes a CTFE-only error with extra information
Next step in the reaction to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99923. Also teaches Miri to implicitly strip provenance in more situations when transmuting pointers to integers, which fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2456.
Pointer-to-int transmutation during CTFE now produces a message like this:
```
= help: this code performed an operation that depends on the underlying bytes representing a pointer
= help: the absolute address of a pointer is not known at compile-time, so such operations are not supported
```
r? ``@oli-obk``
Revert let_chains stabilization
This is the revert against master, the beta revert was already done in #100538.
Bumps the stage0 compiler which already has it reverted.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #100898 (Do not report too many expr field candidates)
- #101056 (Add the syntax of references to their documentation summary.)
- #101106 (Rustdoc-Json: Retain Stripped Modules when they are imported, not when they have items)
- #101131 (CTFE: exposing pointers and calling extern fn is just impossible)
- #101141 (Simplify `get_trait_ref` fn used for `virtual_function_elimination`)
- #101146 (Various changes to logging of borrowck-related code)
- #101156 (Remove `Sync` requirement from lint pass objects)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
CTFE: exposing pointers and calling extern fn is just impossible
The remaining "needs RFC" errors are just needlessly confusing, I think -- time to get rid of that error variant. They are anyway only reachable with miri-unleashed (if at all).
r? `@oli-obk`
remove an ineffective check in const_prop
Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100043, only the last two commits are new.
ConstProp has a special check when reading from a local that prevents reading uninit locals. However, if that local flows into `force_allocation`, then no check fires and evaluation proceeds. So this check is not really effective at preventing accesses to uninit locals.
With https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100043, `read_immediate` and friends always fail when reading uninit locals, so I don't see why ConstProp would need a separate check. Thus I propose we remove it. This is needed to be able to do https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100085.
extra sanity check against consts pointing to mutable memory
This should be both unreachable and redundant (since we already ensure that validation only reads from read-only memory, when validating consts), but I feel like we cannot be paranoid enough here, and also if this ever fails it'll be a nicer error than the "cannot read from mutable memory" error.
Replace `Body::basic_blocks()` with field access
Since the refactoring in #98930, it is possible to borrow the basic blocks
independently from other parts of MIR by accessing the `basic_blocks` field
directly.
Replace unnecessary `Body::basic_blocks()` method with a direct field access,
which has an additional benefit of borrowing the basic blocks only.
no alignment check during interning
This should fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101034
r? `@oli-obk`
Unfortunately we don't have a self-contained testcase for this problem. I am not sure how it can be triggered...
Diagnostics migr const eval
This PR should eventually contain all diagnostic migrations for the `rustc_const_eval` crate.
r? `@davidtwco`
`@rustbot` label +A-translation
Because `PassMode::Cast` is by far the largest variant, but is
relatively rare.
This requires making `PassMode` not impl `Copy`, and `Clone` is no
longer necessary. This causes lots of sigil adjusting, but nothing very
notable.
Check projection types before inlining MIR
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100550
I'm very unhappy with this solution, having to duplicate MIR validation code, but at least it removes the ICE.
r? `@compiler-errors`
suggest `once_cell::Lazy` for non-const statics
Addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100410
Some questions:
- removing the `if` seems to include too many cases (e.g. calls to non-const functions inside a `const fn`), but this code excludes the following case:
```rust
const FOO: Foo = non_const_fn();
```
Should we suggest `once_cell` in this case as well?
- The original issue mentions suggesting `AtomicI32` instead of `Mutex<i32>`, should this PR address that as well?
Rename Machine memory hooks to suggest when they run
Some of the other memory hooks start with `before_` or `after_` to indicate that they run before or after a certain operation. These don't, so I was a bit confused as to when they are supposed to run.
`memory_read` can be read two ways in English, "memory was read" or "this is a memory read" so without the prefix this was especially ambiguous.
