This reverts commit a240ccd81c74c105b6f5fe84c46f8d36edb7e306, reversing
changes made to 393fdc10483da930cdbb00eabc3635030d2e776f.
This PR was likely responsible for a relatively large regression in
dist-x86_64-msvc-alt builder times, from approximately 1.7 to 2.8 hours,
bringing that builder into the pool of the slowest builders we currently have.
This seems to be limited to the alt builder due to needing parallel-compiler
enabled, likely leading to slow LLVM compilation for some reason.
Improve `unused_unsafe` lint
I’m going to add some motivation and explanation below, particularly pointing the changes in behavior from this PR.
_Edit:_ Looking for existing issues, looks like this PR fixes#88260.
_Edit2:_ Now also contains code that closes#90776.
Main motivation: Fixes some issues with the current behavior. This PR is
more-or-less completely re-implementing the unused_unsafe lint; it’s also only
done in the MIR-version of the lint, the set of tests for the `-Zthir-unsafeck`
version no longer succeeds (and is thus disabled, see `lint-unused-unsafe.rs`).
On current nightly,
```rs
unsafe fn unsf() {}
fn inner_ignored() {
unsafe {
#[allow(unused_unsafe)]
unsafe {
unsf()
}
}
}
```
doesn’t create any warnings. This situation is not unrealistic to come by, the
inner `unsafe` block could e.g. come from a macro. Actually, this PR even
includes removal of one unused `unsafe` in the standard library that was missed
in a similar situation. (The inner `unsafe` coming from an external macro hides
the warning, too.)
The reason behind this problem is how the check currently works:
* While generating MIR, it already skips nested unsafe blocks (i.e. unsafe
nested in other unsafe) so that the inner one is always the one considered
unused
* To differentiate the cases of no unsafe operations inside the `unsafe` vs.
a surrounding `unsafe` block, there’s some ad-hoc magic walking up the HIR to
look for surrounding used `unsafe` blocks.
There’s a lot of problems with this approach besides the one presented above.
E.g. the MIR-building uses checks for `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint to decide
early whether or not `unsafe` blocks in an `unsafe fn` are redundant and ought
to be removed.
```rs
unsafe fn granular_disallow_op_in_unsafe_fn() {
unsafe {
#[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
{
unsf();
}
}
}
```
```
error: call to unsafe function is unsafe and requires unsafe block (error E0133)
--> src/main.rs:13:13
|
13 | unsf();
| ^^^^^^ call to unsafe function
|
note: the lint level is defined here
--> src/main.rs:11:16
|
11 | #[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: consult the function's documentation for information on how to avoid undefined behavior
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:5
|
9 | unsafe fn granular_disallow_op_in_unsafe_fn() {
| --------------------------------------------- because it's nested under this `unsafe` fn
10 | unsafe {
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
```
Here, the intermediate `unsafe` was ignored, even though it contains a unsafe
operation that is not allowed to happen in an `unsafe fn` without an additional `unsafe` block.
Also closures were problematic and the workaround/algorithms used on current
nightly didn’t work properly. (I skipped trying to fully understand what it was
supposed to do, because this PR uses a completely different approach.)
```rs
fn nested() {
unsafe {
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
```
vs
```rs
fn nested() {
let _ = || unsafe {
let _ = || unsafe { unsf() };
};
}
```
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:9:16
|
9 | let _ = || unsafe {
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:20
|
10 | let _ = || unsafe { unsf() };
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
*note that this warning kind-of suggests that **both** unsafe blocks are redundant*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also dislike the fact that it always suggests keeping the outermost `unsafe`.
E.g. for
```rs
fn granularity() {
unsafe {
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
I prefer if `rustc` suggests removing the more-course outer-level `unsafe`
instead of the fine-grained inner `unsafe` blocks, which it currently does on nightly:
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:11:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
11 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:12:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
12 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Needless to say, this PR addresses all these points. For context, as far as my
understanding goes, the main advantage of skipping inner unsafe blocks was that
a test case like
```rs
fn top_level_used() {
unsafe {
unsf();
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
should generate some warning because there’s redundant nested `unsafe`, however
every single `unsafe` block _does_ contain some statement that uses it. Of course
this PR doesn’t aim change the warnings on this kind of code example, because
the current behavior, warning on all the inner `unsafe` blocks, makes sense in this case.
As mentioned, during MIR building all the unsafe blocks *are* kept now, and usage
is attributed to them. The way to still generate a warning like
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:11:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsf();
11 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:12:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
12 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:13:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
13 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
in this case is by emitting a `unused_unsafe` warning for all of the `unsafe`
blocks that are _within a **used** unsafe block_.
The previous code had a little HIR traversal already anyways to collect a set of
all the unsafe blocks (in order to afterwards determine which ones are unused
afterwards). This PR uses such a traversal to do additional things including logic
like _always_ warn for an `unsafe` block that’s inside of another **used**
unsafe block. The traversal is expanded to include nested closures in the same go,
this simplifies a lot of things.
The whole logic around `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` is a little complicated, there’s
some test cases of corner-cases in this PR. (The implementation involves
differentiating between whether a used unsafe block was used exclusively by
operations where `allow(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)` was active.) The main goal was
to make sure that code should compile successfully if all the `unused_unsafe`-warnings
are addressed _simultaneously_ (by removing the respective `unsafe` blocks)
no matter how complicated the patterns of `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` being
disallowed and allowed throughout the function are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One noteworthy design decision I took here: An `unsafe` block
with `allow(unused_unsafe)` **is considered used** for the purposes of
linting about redundant contained unsafe blocks. So while
```rs
fn granularity() {
unsafe { //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
warns for the outer `unsafe` block,
```rs
fn top_level_ignored() {
#[allow(unused_unsafe)]
unsafe {
#[deny(unused_unsafe)]
{
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
}
}
}
```
warns on the inner ones.
Move ty::print methods to Drop-based scope guards
Primary goal is reducing codegen of the TLS access for each closure, which shaves ~3 seconds of bootstrap time over rustc as a whole.
This was largely just caching the shard value at this point, which is not
particularly useful -- in the use sites the key was being hashed nearby anyway.
Adopt let else in more places
Continuation of #89933, #91018, #91481, #93046, #93590, #94011.
I have extended my clippy lint to also recognize tuple passing and match statements. The diff caused by fixing it is way above 1 thousand lines. Thus, I split it up into multiple pull requests to make reviewing easier. This is the biggest of these PRs and handles the changes outside of rustdoc, rustc_typeck, rustc_const_eval, rustc_trait_selection, which were handled in PRs #94139, #94142, #94143, #94144.
Suggest `impl Trait` return type when incorrectly using a generic return type
Address #85991
When there is a type mismatch error and the return type is generic, and that generic parameter is not used in the function parameters, suggest replacing that generic with the `impl Trait` syntax.
r? `@estebank`
Address #85991
Suggest the `impl Trait` return type syntax if the user tried to return a generic parameter and we get a type mismatch
The suggestion is not emitted if the param appears in the function parameters, and only get the bounds that actually involve `T: ` directly
It also checks whether the generic param is contained in any where bound (where it isn't the self type), and if one is found (like `Option<T>: Send`), it is not suggested.
This also adds `TyS::contains`, which recursively vistits the type and looks if the other type is contained anywhere
Suggest copying trait associated type bounds on lifetime error
Closes#92033
Kind of the most simple suggestion to make - we don't try to be fancy. Turns out, it's still pretty useful (the couple existing tests that trigger this error end up fixed - for this error - upon applying the fix).
r? ``@estebank``
cc ``@nikomatsakis``
Improve comments about type folding/visiting.
I have found this code confusing for years. I've always roughly
understood it, but never exactly. I just made my fourth(?) attempt and
finally cracked it.
This commit improves the comments. In particular, it explicitly
describes how you can't do a custom fold/visit of any type; there are
actually a handful of "types of interest" (e.g. `Ty`, `Predicate`,
`Region`, `Const`) that can be custom folded/visted, and all other types
just get a generic traversal. I think this was the part that eluded me
on all my prior attempts at understanding.
The commit also updates comments to account for some newer changes such
as the fallible/infallible folding distinction, does some minor
reorderings, and moves one `impl` to a better place.
r? `@BoxyUwU`
I have found this code confusing for years. I've always roughly
understood it, but never exactly. I just made my fourth(?) attempt and
finally cracked it.
This commit improves the comments. In particular, it explicitly
describes how you can't do a custom fold/visit of any type; there are
actually a handful of "types of interest" (e.g. `Ty`, `Predicate`,
`Region`, `Const`) that can be custom folded/visted, and all other types
just get a generic traversal. I think this was the part that eluded me
on all my prior attempts at understanding.
The commit also updates comments to account for some newer changes such
as the fallible/infallible folding distinction, does some minor
reorderings, and moves one `impl` to a better place.
Fix inconsistent symbol mangling with -Zverbose
Always skip arguments that are the defaults of their respective
parameters, to avoid generating inconsistent symbols for builds
with `-Zverbose` flag and without it.
Support pretty printing of invalid constants
Make it possible to pretty print invalid constants by introducing a
fallible variant of `destructure_const` and falling back to debug
formatting when it fails.
Closes#93688.
Treat static refs as `mir::ConstantKind::Val`
With the upcoming introduction of Valtrees we want to treat more values as `mir::ConstantKind::Val` directly.
r? `@lcnr`
cc `@oli-obk`
Always skip arguments that are the defaults of their respective
parameters, to avoid generating inconsistent symbols for builds
with `-Zverbose` flag and without it.
Make it possible to pretty print invalid constants by introducing a
fallible variant of `destructure_const` and falling back to debug
formatting when it fails.
