don't allow ZST in ScalarInt
There are several indications that we should not ZST as a ScalarInt:
- We had two ways to have ZST valtrees, either an empty `Branch` or a `Leaf` with a ZST in it.
`ValTree::zst()` used the former, but the latter could possibly arise as well.
- Likewise, the interpreter had `Immediate::Uninit` and `Immediate::Scalar(Scalar::ZST)`.
- LLVM codegen already had to special-case ZST ScalarInt.
So I propose we stop using ScalarInt to represent ZST (which are clearly not integers). Instead, we can add new ZST variants to those types that did not have other variants which could be used for this purpose.
Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98831. Only the commits starting from "don't allow ZST in ScalarInt" are new.
r? `@oli-obk`
There are several indications that we should not ZST as a ScalarInt:
- We had two ways to have ZST valtrees, either an empty `Branch` or a `Leaf` with a ZST in it.
`ValTree::zst()` used the former, but the latter could possibly arise as well.
- Likewise, the interpreter had `Immediate::Uninit` and `Immediate::Scalar(Scalar::ZST)`.
- LLVM codegen already had to special-case ZST ScalarInt.
So instead add new ZST variants to those types that did not have other variants
which could be used for this purpose.
Clarify MIR semantics of storage statements
Seems worthwhile to start closing out some of the less controversial open questions about MIR semantics. Hopefully this is fairly non-controversial - it's what we implement already, and I see no reason to do anything more restrictive. cc ``@tmiasko`` who commented on this when it was discussed in the original PR that added these docs.
interpret: use AllocRange in UninitByteAccess
also use nice new format string syntax in `interpret/error.rs`, and use the `#` flag to add `0x` prefixes where applicable.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Make MIR basic blocks field public
This makes it possible to mutably borrow different fields of the MIR
body without resorting to methods like `basic_blocks_local_decls_mut_and_var_debug_info`.
To preserve validity of control flow graph caches in the presence of
modifications, a new struct `BasicBlocks` wraps together basic blocks
and control flow graph caches.
The `BasicBlocks` dereferences to `IndexVec<BasicBlock, BasicBlockData>`.
On the other hand a mutable access requires explicit `as_mut()` call.
This makes it possible to mutably borrow different fields of the MIR
body without resorting to methods like `basic_blocks_local_decls_mut_and_var_debug_info`.
To preserve validity of control flow graph caches in the presence of
modifications, a new struct `BasicBlocks` wraps together basic blocks
and control flow graph caches.
The `BasicBlocks` dereferences to `IndexVec<BasicBlock, BasicBlockData>`.
On the other hand a mutable access requires explicit `as_mut()` call.
interpret: remove support for unsized_locals
I added support for unsized_locals in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/59780 but the current implementation is a crude hack and IMO definitely not the right way to have unsized locals in MIR. It also [causes problems](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/146212-t-compiler.2Fconst-eval/topic/Missing.20Layout.20Check.20in.20.60interpret.2Foperand.2Ers.60.3F). and what codegen does is unsound and has been for years since clearly nobody cares (so I hope nobody actually relies on that implementation and I'll be happy if Miri ensures they do not). I think if we want to have unsized locals in Miri/MIR we should add them properly, either by having a `StorageLive` that takes metadata or by having an `alloca` that returns a pointer (making the ptr indirection explicit) or something like that.
So, this PR removes the `LocalValue::Unallocated` hack. It adds `Immediate::Uninit`, for several reasons:
- This lets us still do fairly little work in `push_stack_frame`, in particular we do not actually have to create any allocations.
- If/when I remove `ScalarMaybeUninit`, we will need something like this to have an "optimized" representation of uninitialized locals. Without this we'd have to put uninitialized integers into the heap!
- const-prop needs some way to indicate "I don't know the value of this local'; it used to use `LocalValue::Unallocated` for that, now it can use `Immediate::Uninit`.
There is still a fundamental difference between `LocalValue::Unallocated` and `Immediate::Uninit`: the latter is considered a regular local that you can read from and write to, it just has a more optimized representation when compared with an actual `Allocation` that is fully uninit. In contrast, `LocalValue::Unallocated` had this really odd behavior where you would write to it but not read from it. (This is in fact what caused the problems mentioned above.)
While at it I also did two drive-by cleanups/improvements:
- In `pop_stack_frame`, do the return value copying and local deallocation while the frame is still on the stack. This leads to better error locations being reported. The old errors were [sometimes rather confusing](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/269128-miri/topic/Cron.20Job.20Failure.202022-06-24/near/287445522).
- Deduplicate `copy_op` and `copy_op_transmute`.
r? `@oli-obk`
Operand::Uninit is an *allocated* operand that is fully uninitialized.
This lets us lazily allocate the actual backing store of *all* locals (no matter their ABI).
I also reordered things in pop_stack_frame at the same time.
I should probably have made that a separate commit...
Change enum->int casts to not go through MIR casts.
follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/96814
this simplifies all backends and even gives LLVM more information about the return value of `Rvalue::Discriminant`, enabling optimizations in more cases.
fix interpreter validity check on Box
Follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98554: avoid walking over parts of the value twice.
And then move all that logic into the general visitor so not each visitor implementation has to deal with it...
Interpret: AllocRange Debug impl, and use it more consistently
The two commits are pretty independent but it did not seem worth having two PRs for them.
r? ``@oli-obk``
interpret: don't rely on ScalarPair for overflowed arithmetic
This is for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97861.
Cc `@eddyb`
I would like to avoid making this depend on `dest.layout.abi` to avoid a branch that we are not usually covering both sides of. Though OTOH this seems like fairly straight-forward code. But let's benchmark this option first to see how bad that extra `force_allocation` really is.
