caution against ptr-to-int transmutes
I don't know how strong of a statement we want to make here, but I am very concerned that the current docs could be interpreted as saying that ptr-to-int transmutes are just as okay as transmuting `*mut T` into an `&mut T`.
Examples [like this](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/286#issuecomment-1085144431) show that ptr-to-int transmutes are deeply suspicious -- they are either UB, or they don't round-trip properly, or we have to basically say that `transmute` will actively look for pointers and do all the things a ptr-to-int cast does (which includes a global side-effect of marking the pointed-to allocation as 'exposed').
Another alternative might be to simply not talk about them... but we *do* want people to use casts rather than transmutes for this.
Cc `@rust-lang/lang`
With the updated libc, UNIX stack overflow handling in libstd can now
use the common `si_addr` accessor function, rather than attempting to
use a field from that name in `siginfo_t`. This simplifies the
collection of the fault address, particularly on platforms where that
data resides within a union in `siginfo_t`.
Update panic docs to make it clearer when to use panic vs Result
This is based on a question that came up in one of my [error handling office hours](https://twitter.com/yaahc_/status/1506376624509374467?s=20&t=Sp-cEjrx5kpMdNsAGPOo9w) meetings. I had a user who was fairly familiar with error type design, thiserror and anyhow, and rust in general, but who was still confused about when to use panics vs when to use Result and `Error`.
This will also be cross referenced in an error handling FAQ that I will be creating in the https://github.com/rust-lang/project-error-handling repo shortly.
explicitly distinguish pointer::addr and pointer::expose_addr
``@bgeron`` pointed out that the current docs promise that `ptr.addr()` and `ptr as usize` are equivalent. I don't think that is a promise we want to make. (Conceptually, `ptr as usize` might 'escape' the provenance to enable future `usize as ptr` casts, but `ptr.addr()` dertainly does not do that.)
So I propose we word the docs a bit more carefully here. ``@Gankra`` what do you think?
Mention implementers of unsatisfied trait
When encountering an unsatisfied trait bound, if there are no other
suggestions, mention all the types that *do* implement that trait:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `f32: Foo` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/impl_wf.rs:22:6
|
LL | impl Baz<f32> for f32 { }
| ^^^^^^^^ the trait `Foo` is not implemented for `f32`
|
= help: the trait `Foo` is implemented for `i32`
note: required by a bound in `Baz`
--> $DIR/impl_wf.rs:18:31
|
LL | trait Baz<U: ?Sized> where U: Foo { }
| ^^^ required by this bound in `Baz`
```
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `u32: Foo` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/associated-types-path-2.rs:29:5
|
LL | f1(2u32, 4u32);
| ^^ the trait `Foo` is not implemented for `u32`
|
= help: the trait `Foo` is implemented for `i32`
note: required by a bound in `f1`
--> $DIR/associated-types-path-2.rs:13:14
|
LL | pub fn f1<T: Foo>(a: T, x: T::A) {}
| ^^^ required by this bound in `f1`
```
Suggest dereferencing in more cases.
Fix#87437, fix#90970.
When encountering an unsatisfied trait bound, if there are no other
suggestions, mention all the types that *do* implement that trait:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `f32: Foo` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/impl_wf.rs:22:6
|
LL | impl Baz<f32> for f32 { }
| ^^^^^^^^ the trait `Foo` is not implemented for `f32`
|
= help: the following other types implement trait `Foo`:
Option<T>
i32
str
note: required by a bound in `Baz`
--> $DIR/impl_wf.rs:18:31
|
LL | trait Baz<U: ?Sized> where U: Foo { }
| ^^^ required by this bound in `Baz`
```
Mention implementers of traits in `ImplObligation`s.
Do not mention other `impl`s for closures, ranges and `?`.
Windows: Synchronize asynchronous pipe reads and writes
On Windows, the pipes used for spawned processes are opened for asynchronous access but `read` and `write` are done using the standard methods that assume synchronous access. This means that the buffer (and variables on the stack) may be read/written to after the function returns.
This PR ensures reads/writes complete before returning. Note that this only applies to pipes we create and does not affect the standard file read/write methods.
Fixes#95411
Add SyncUnsafeCell.
This adds `SyncUnsafeCell`, which is just `UnsafeCell` except it implements `Sync`.
This was first proposed under the name `RacyUnsafeCell` here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53639#issuecomment-415515748 and here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53639#issuecomment-432741659 and here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53639#issuecomment-888435728
It allows you to create an UnsafeCell that is Sync without having to wrap it in a struct first (and then implement Sync for that struct).
E.g. `static X: SyncUnsafeCell<i32>`. Using a regular `UnsafeCell` as `static` is not possible, because it isn't `Sync`. We have a language workaround for it called `static mut`, but it's nice to be able to use the proper type for such unsafety instead.
It also makes implementing synchronization primitives based on unsafe cells slightly less verbose, because by using `SyncUnsafeCell` for `UnsafeCell`s that are shared between threads, you don't need a separate `impl<..> Sync for ..`. Using this type also clearly documents that the cell is expected to be accessed from multiple threads.
Mark Location::caller() as #[inline]
This function gets compiled to a single register move as it actually gets it's return value passed in as argument.
Fix &mut invalidation in ptr::swap doctest
Under Stacked Borrows with raw pointer tagging, the previous code was UB
because the code which creates the the second pointer borrows the array
through a tag in the borrow stacks below the Unique tag that our first
pointer is based on, thus invalidating the first pointer.
This is not definitely a bug and may never be real UB, but I desperately
want people to write code that conforms to SB with raw pointer tagging
so that I can write good diagnostics. The alternative aliasing models
aren't possible to diagnose well due to state space explosion.
Therefore, it would be super cool if the standard library nudged people
towards writing code that is valid with respect to SB with raw pointer
tagging.
The diagnostics that I want to write are implemented in a branch of Miri and the one for this case is below:
```
error: Undefined Behavior: attempting a read access using <2170> at alloc1068[0x0], but that tag does not exist in the borrow stack for this location
--> /home/ben/rust/library/core/src/intrinsics.rs:2103:14
|
2103 | unsafe { copy_nonoverlapping(src, dst, count) }
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |
| attempting a read access using <2170> at alloc1068[0x0], but that tag does not exist in the borrow stack for this location
| this error occurs as part of an access at alloc1068[0x0..0x8]
|
= help: this indicates a potential bug in the program: it performed an invalid operation, but the rules it violated are still experimental
= help: see https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/blob/master/wip/stacked-borrows.md for further information
help: <2170> was created due to a retag at offsets [0x0..0x10]
--> ../libcore/src/ptr/mod.rs:640:9
|
8 | let x = array[0..].as_mut_ptr() as *mut [u32; 2]; // this is `array[0..2]`
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: <2170> was later invalidated due to a retag at offsets [0x0..0x10]
--> ../libcore/src/ptr/mod.rs:641:9
|
9 | let y = array[2..].as_mut_ptr() as *mut [u32; 2]; // this is `array[2..4]`
| ^^^^^
= note: inside `std::intrinsics::copy_nonoverlapping::<[u32; 2]>` at /home/ben/rust/library/core/src/intrinsics.rs:2103:14
= note: inside `std::ptr::swap::<[u32; 2]>` at /home/ben/rust/library/core/src/ptr/mod.rs:685:9
note: inside `main::_doctest_main____libcore_src_ptr_mod_rs_635_0` at ../libcore/src/ptr/mod.rs:12:5
--> ../libcore/src/ptr/mod.rs:644:5
|
12 | ptr::swap(x, y);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: inside `main` at ../libcore/src/ptr/mod.rs:15:3
--> ../libcore/src/ptr/mod.rs:647:3
|
15 | } _doctest_main____libcore_src_ptr_mod_rs_635_0() }
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: some details are omitted, run with `MIRIFLAGS=-Zmiri-backtrace=full` for a verbose backtrace
error: aborting due to previous error
```
libc::prctl and the prctl definitions in glibc, musl, and the kernel
headers are C variadic functions. Therefore, all the arguments (except
for the first) are untyped. It is only the Linux man page which says
that prctl takes 4 unsigned long arguments. I have no idea why it says
this.
In any case, the upshot is that we don't need to cast the pointer to an
integer and confuse Miri.
Under Stacked Borrows with raw pointer tagging, the previous code was UB
because the code which creates the the second pointer borrows the array
through a tag in the borrow stacks below the Unique tag that our first
pointer is based on, thus invalidating the first pointer.
This is not definitely a bug and may never be real UB, but I desperately
want people to write code that conforms to SB with raw pointer tagging
so that I can write good diagnostics. The alternative aliasing models
aren't possible to diagnose well due to state space explosion.
Therefore, it would be super cool if the standard library nudged people
towards writing code that is valid with respect to SB with raw pointer
tagging.
Improve doc example of DerefMut
It is more illustrative, after using `*x` to modify the field, to show
in the assertion that the field has indeed been modified.
Add debug assertions to some unsafe functions
As suggested by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51713
~~Some similar code calls `abort()` instead of `panic!()` but aborting doesn't work in a `const fn`, and the intrinsic for doing dispatch based on whether execution is in a const is unstable.~~
This picked up some invalid uses of `get_unchecked` in the compiler, and fixes them.
I can confirm that they do in fact pick up invalid uses of `get_unchecked` in the wild, though the user experience is less-than-awesome:
```
Running unittests (target/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/deps/rle_decode_fast-04b7918da2001b50)
running 6 tests
error: test failed, to rerun pass '--lib'
Caused by:
process didn't exit successfully: `/home/ben/rle-decode-helper/target/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/deps/rle_decode_fast-04b7918da2001b50` (signal: 4, SIGILL: illegal instruction)
```
~~As best I can tell these changes produce a 6% regression in the runtime of `./x.py test` when `[rust] debug = true` is set.~~
Latest commit (6894d559bd) brings the additional overhead from this PR down to 0.5%, while also adding a few more assertions. I think this actually covers all the places in `core` that it is reasonable to check for safety requirements at runtime.
Thoughts?
make memcmp return a value of c_int_width instead of i32
This is an attempt to fix#32610 and #78022, namely, that `memcmp` always returns an `i32` regardless of the platform. I'm running into some issues and was hoping I could get some help.
Here's what I've been attempting so far:
1. Build the stage0 compiler with all the changes _expect_ for the changes in `library/core/src/slice/cmp.rs` and `compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/context.rs`; this is because `target_c_int_width` isn't passed through and recognized as a valid config option yet. I'm building with `./x.py build --stage 0 library/core library/proc_macro compiler/rustc`
2. Next I add in the `#[cfg(c_int_width = ...)]` params to `cmp.rs` and `context.rs` and build the stage 1 compiler by running `./x.py build --keep-stage 0 --stage 1 library/core library/proc_macro compiler/rustc`. This step now runs successfully.
3. Lastly, I try to build the test program for AVR mentioned in #78022 with `RUSTFLAGS="--emit llvm-ir" cargo build --release`, and look at the resulting llvm IR, which still shows:
```
...
%11 = call addrspace(1) i32 `@memcmp(i8*` nonnull %5, i8* nonnull %10, i16 5) #7, !dbg !1191 %.not = icmp eq i32 %11, 0, !dbg !1191
...
; Function Attrs: nounwind optsize declare i32 `@memcmp(i8*,` i8*, i16) local_unnamed_addr addrspace(1) #4
```
Any ideas what I'm missing here? Alternately, if this is totally the wrong approach I'm open to other suggestions.
cc `@Rahix`
