Separate out a `hir::Impl` struct
This makes it possible to pass the `Impl` directly to functions, instead
of having to pass each of the many fields one at a time. It also
simplifies matches in many cases.
See `rustc_save_analysis::dump_visitor::process_impl` or `rustdoc::clean::clean_impl` for a good example of how this makes `impl`s easier to work with.
r? `@petrochenkov` maybe?
This makes it possible to pass the `Impl` directly to functions, instead
of having to pass each of the many fields one at a time. It also
simplifies matches in many cases.
Make CTFE able to check for UB...
... by not doing any optimizations on the `const fn` MIR used in CTFE. This means we duplicate all `const fn`'s MIR now, once for CTFE, once for runtime. This PR is for checking the perf effect, so we have some data when talking about https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval/blob/master/rfcs/0000-const-ub.md
To do this, we now have two queries for obtaining mir: `optimized_mir` and `mir_for_ctfe`. It is now illegal to invoke `optimized_mir` to obtain the MIR of a const/static item's initializer, an array length, an inline const expression or an enum discriminant initializer. For `const fn`, both `optimized_mir` and `mir_for_ctfe` work, the former returning the MIR that LLVM should use if the function is called at runtime. Similarly it is illegal to invoke `mir_for_ctfe` on regular functions.
This is all checked via appropriate assertions and I don't think it is easy to get wrong, as there should be no `mir_for_ctfe` calls outside the const evaluator or metadata encoding. Almost all rustc devs should keep using `optimized_mir` (or `instance_mir` for that matter).
Add ABI argument for called function in `find_mir_or_eval_fn` and
`call_extra_fn`. Useful for comparing with expected ABI in interpreters.
Related to [miri/1631](https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/1631)
Constier maybe uninit
I was playing around trying to make `[T; N]::zip()` in #79451 be `const fn`. One of the things I bumped into was `MaybeUninit::assume_init`. Is there any reason for the intrinsic `assert_inhabited<T>()` and therefore `MaybeUninit::assume_init` not being `const`?
---
I have as best as I could tried to follow the instruction in [library/core/src/intrinsics.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/core/src/intrinsics.rs#L11). I have no idea what I am doing but it seems to compile after some slight changes after the copy paste. Is this anywhere near how this should be done?
Also any ideas for name of the feature gate? I guess `const_maybe_assume_init` is quite misleading since I have added some more methods. Should I add test? If so what should be tested?
Remove `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_ptr]` and add `#![feature(const_fn_fn_ptr_basics)]`
`rustc_allow_const_fn_ptr` was a hack to work around the lack of an escape hatch for the "min `const fn`" checks in const-stable functions. Now that we have co-opted `allow_internal_unstable` for this purpose, we no longer need a bespoke attribute.
Now this functionality is gated under `const_fn_fn_ptr_basics` (how concise!), and `#[allow_internal_unstable(const_fn_fn_ptr_basics)]` replaces `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_ptr]`. `const_fn_fn_ptr_basics` allows function pointer types to appear in the arguments and locals of a `const fn` as well as function pointer casts to be performed inside a `const fn`. Both of these were allowed in constants and statics already. Notably, this does **not** allow users to invoke function pointers in a const context. Presumably, we will use a nicer name for that (`const_fn_ptr`?).
r? @oli-obk
This was a hack to work around the lack of an escape hatch for the "min
`const fn`" checks in const-stable functions. Now that we have co-opted
`allow_internal_unstable` for this purpose, we no longer need the
bespoke attribute.
Check for missing const-stability attributes in `rustc_passes`
Currently, this happens as a side effect of `is_min_const_fn`, which is non-obvious. Also adds a test for this case, since we didn't seem to have one before.
