ConstProp: Correctly remove const if unknown value assigned to it.
Closes#118328
The problematic sequence of MIR is:
```rust
_1 = const 0_usize;
_1 = const _; // This is an associated constant we can't know before monomorphization.
_0 = _1;
```
1. When `ConstProp::visit_assign` happens on `_1 = const 0_usize;`, it records that `0x0usize` is the value for `_1`.
2. Next `visit_assign` happens on `_1 = const _;`. Because the rvalue `.has_param()`, it can't be const evaled.
3. Finaly, `visit_assign` happens on `_0 = _1;`. Here it would think the value of `_1` was `0x0usize` from step 1.
The solution is to remove consts when checking the RValue fails, as they may have contained values that should now be invalidated, as that local was overwritten.
This should probably be back-ported to beta. Stable is more iffy, as it's gone unidentified since 1.70, so I only think it's worthwhile if there's another reason for a 1.74.1 release anyway.
Inlining creates additional statements to be executed along the return
edge: an assignment to the destination, storage end for temporaries.
Previously those statements where inserted directly into a call target,
but this is incorrect when the target has other predecessors.
Avoid the issue by creating a new dedicated block for those statements.
When the block happens to be redundant it will be removed by CFG
simplification that follows inlining.
Fixes#117355
Custom MIR: Support cleanup blocks
Cleanup blocks are declared with `bb (cleanup) = { ... }`.
`Call` and `Drop` terminators take an additional argument describing the unwind action, which is one of the following:
* `UnwindContinue()`
* `UnwindUnreachable()`
* `UnwindTerminate(reason)`, where reason is `ReasonAbi` or `ReasonInCleanup`
* `UnwindCleanup(block)`
Also support unwind resume and unwind terminate terminators:
* `UnwindResume()`
* `UnwindTerminate(reason)`
Cleanup blocks are declared with `bb (cleanup) = { ... }`.
`Call` and `Drop` terminators take an additional argument describing the
unwind action, which is one of the following:
* `UnwindContinue()`
* `UnwindUnreachable()`
* `UnwindTerminate(reason)`, where reason is `ReasonAbi` or `ReasonInCleanup`
* `UnwindCleanup(block)`
Also support unwind resume and unwind terminate terminators:
* `UnwindResume()`
* `UnwindTerminate(reason)`
Add FileCheck annotations to a few MIR opt tests
const_debuginfo did not specify which passes were running.
const_prop_miscompile is renamed and moved to const_prop directory.
while_storage was broken.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #117298 (Recover from missing param list in function definitions)
- #117373 (Avoid the path trimming ICE lint in error reporting)
- #117441 (Do not assert in op_to_const.)
- #117488 (Update minifier-rs version to 0.3.0)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add FileCheck annotations to MIR-opt inlining tests
Part of #116971, adds FileCheck annotations to MIR-opt tests in `tests/mir-opt/inline`.
I left out a few (such as `inline_cycle`) where it mentioned that the particular outcome of inlining isn't important, just that the inliner doesn't get stuck in an infinite loop.
r? cjgillot
Support enum variants in offset_of!
This MR implements support for navigating through enum variants in `offset_of!`, placing the enum variant name in the second argument to `offset_of!`. The RFC placed it in the first argument, but I think it interacts better with nested field access in the second, as you can then write things like
```rust
offset_of!(Type, field.Variant.field)
```
Alternatively, a syntactic distinction could be made between variants and fields (e.g. `field::Variant.field`) but I'm not convinced this would be helpful.
[RFC 3308 # Enum Support](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3308-offset_of.html#enum-support-offset_ofsomeenumstructvariant-field_on_variant)
Tracking Issue #106655.
Clean up unchecked_math, separate out unchecked_shifts
Tracking issue: #85122
Changes:
1. Remove `const_inherent_unchecked_arith` flag and make const-stability flags the same as the method feature flags. Given the number of other unsafe const fns already stabilised, it makes sense to just stabilise these in const context when they're stabilised.
2. Move `unchecked_shl` and `unchecked_shr` into a separate `unchecked_shifts` flag, since the semantics for them are unclear and they'll likely be stabilised separately as a result.
3. Add an `unchecked_neg` method exclusively to signed integers, under the `unchecked_neg` flag. This is because it's a new API and probably needs some time to marinate before it's stabilised, and while it *would* make sense to have a similar version for unsigned integers since `checked_neg` also exists for those there is absolutely no case where that would be a good idea, IMQHO.
The longer-term goal here is to prepare the `unchecked_math` methods for an FCP and stabilisation since they've existed for a while, their semantics are clear, and people seem in favour of stabilising them.
