Enable coinduction support for Safe Transmute
This patch adds the `#[rustc_coinductive]` annotation to `BikeshedIntrinsicFrom`, so that it's possible to compute transmutability for recursive types.
## Motivation
Safe Transmute currently already supports references (#110662). However, if a type is implemented recursively, it leads to an infinite loop when we try to check if transmutation is safe.
A couple simple examples that one might want to write, that are currently not possible to check transmutability for:
```rs
#[repr(C)] struct A(&'static B);
#[repr(C)] struct B(&'static A);
```
```rs
#[repr(C)]
enum IList<'a> { Nil, Cons(isize, &'a IList<'a>) }
#[repr(C)]
enum UList<'a> { Nil, Cons(usize, &'a UList<'a>) }
```
Previously, `@jswrenn` was considering writing a co-inductive solver from scratch, just for the `rustc_tranmsute` crate. Later on as I started working on Safe Transmute myself, I came across the `#[rustc_coinductive]` annotation, which is currently only being used for the `Sized` trait. Leveraging this trait actually solved the problem entirely, and it saves a lot of duplicate work that would have had to happen in `rustc_transmute`.
Uplift `clippy::fn_null_check` lint
This PR aims at uplifting the `clippy::fn_null_check` lint into rustc.
## `incorrect_fn_null_checks`
(warn-by-default)
The `incorrect_fn_null_checks` lint checks for expression that checks if a function pointer is null.
### Example
```rust
let fn_ptr: fn() = /* somehow obtained nullable function pointer */
if (fn_ptr as *const ()).is_null() { /* ... */ }
```
### Explanation
Function pointers are assumed to be non-null, checking for their nullity is incorrect.
-----
Mostly followed the instructions for uplifting a clippy lint described here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99696#pullrequestreview-1134072751
`@rustbot` label: +I-lang-nominated
r? compiler
enable test_join test in Miri
Miri for quite a while now has a hack to support self-referential generators: non-`Unique` mutable references are exempt from aliasing conditions. So we can run this test now. (It passes.)
Also extend a comment in a Vec test, while I am at it.
Mark wrapped intrinsics as inline(always)
This should mitigate having the inliner decide not to inline when the architecture is lacking an implementation of
TargetTransformInfo::areInlineCompatible aware of the target features (e.g. PowerPC as today).
See https://github.com/rust-lang/stdarch/pull/1443#issuecomment-1613788080
This should mitigate having the inliner decide not to inline when
the architecture is lacking an implementation of
TargetTransformInfo::areInlineCompatible aware of the target
features (e.g. PowerPC as today).
Stabilize `const_cstr_methods`
This PR seeks to stabilize `const_cstr_methods`. Fixes most of #101719
## New const stable API
```rust
impl CStr {
// depends: memchr
pub const fn from_bytes_with_nul(bytes: &[u8]) -> Result<&Self, FromBytesWithNulError> {...}
// depends: const_slice_index
pub const fn to_bytes(&self) -> &[u8] {}
// depends: pointer casts
pub const fn to_bytes_with_nul(&self) -> &[u8] {}
// depends: str::from_utf8
pub const fn to_str(&self) -> Result<&str, str::Utf8Error> {}
}
```
I don't think any of these methods will have any issue when `CStr` becomes a thin pointer as long as `memchr` is const (which also allows for const `strlen`) .
## Notes
- `from_bytes_until_nul` relies on `const_slice_index`, which relies on `const_trait_impls`, and generally this should be avoided. After talking with Oli, it should be OK in this case because we could replace the ranges with pointer tricks if needed (worst case being those feature gates disappear). https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107624#discussion_r1101468480
- Making `from_ptr` const is deferred because it depends on `const_eval_select`. I have moved this under the new flag `const_cstr_from_ptr` https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107624#discussion_r1101555239
cc ``@oli-obk`` I think you're the const expert
``@rustbot`` modify labels: +T-libs-api +needs-fcp
This patch adds the `#[rustc_coinductive]` annotation to
`BikeshedIntrinsicFrom`, so that it's possible to compute transmutability for
recursive types.
Specialize `StepBy<Range<{integer}>>`
OLD
iter::bench_range_step_by_fold_u16 700.00ns/iter +/- 10.00ns
iter::bench_range_step_by_fold_usize 519.00ns/iter +/- 6.00ns
iter::bench_range_step_by_loop_u32 555.00ns/iter +/- 7.00ns
iter::bench_range_step_by_sum_reducible 37.00ns/iter +/- 0.00ns
NEW
iter::bench_range_step_by_fold_u16 49.00ns/iter +/- 0.00ns
iter::bench_range_step_by_fold_usize 194.00ns/iter +/- 1.00ns
iter::bench_range_step_by_loop_u32 98.00ns/iter +/- 0.00ns
iter::bench_range_step_by_sum_reducible 1.00ns/iter +/- 0.00ns
NEW + `-Ctarget-cpu=x86-64-v3`
iter::bench_range_step_by_fold_u16 22.00ns/iter +/- 0.00ns
iter::bench_range_step_by_fold_usize 80.00ns/iter +/- 1.00ns
iter::bench_range_step_by_loop_u32 41.00ns/iter +/- 0.00ns
iter::bench_range_step_by_sum_reducible 1.00ns/iter +/- 0.00ns
I have only optimized for walltime of those methods, I haven't tested whether it eliminates bounds checks when indexing into slices via things like `(0..slice.len()).step_by(16)`.
slice::from_raw_parts: mention no-wrap-around condition
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/83996. This probably needs to be mentioned in more places, so I am not closing that issue, but this here should help at least.
For ranges < usize we determine the number of items
StepBy would yield and then store that in the range.end
instead of the actual end. This significantly
simplifies calculation of the loop induction variable
especially in cases where StepBy::step (an usize)
could overflow the Range's item type
Warn on unused `offset_of!()` result
The usage of `core::hint::must_use()` means that we don't get a specialized message. I figured out that since there are plenty of other methods that just have `#[must_use]` with no message it'll be fine, but it is a bit unfortunate that the error mentions `must_use` and not `offset_of!`.
Fixes#111669.
Add `implement_via_object` to `rustc_deny_explicit_impl` to control object candidate assembly
Some built-in traits are special, since they are used to prove facts about the program that are important for later phases of compilation such as codegen and CTFE. For example, the `Unsize` trait is used to assert to the compiler that we are able to unsize a type into another type. It doesn't have any methods because it doesn't actually *instruct* the compiler how to do this unsizing, but this is later used (alongside an exhaustive match of combinations of unsizeable types) during codegen to generate unsize coercion code.
Due to this, these built-in traits are incompatible with the type erasure provided by object types. For example, the existence of `dyn Unsize<T>` does not mean that the compiler is able to unsize `Box<dyn Unsize<T>>` into `Box<T>`, since `Unsize` is a *witness* to the fact that a type can be unsized, and it doesn't actually encode that unsizing operation in its vtable as mentioned above.
The old trait solver gets around this fact by having complex control flow that never considers object bounds for certain built-in traits:
2f896da247/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/candidate_assembly.rs (L61-L132)
However, candidate assembly in the new solver is much more lovely, and I'd hate to add this list of opt-out cases into the new solver. Instead of maintaining this complex and hard-coded control flow, instead we can make this a property of the trait via a built-in attribute. We already have such a build attribute that's applied to every single trait that we care about: `rustc_deny_explicit_impl`. This PR adds `implement_via_object` as a meta-item to that attribute that allows us to opt a trait out of object-bound candidate assembly as well.
r? `@lcnr`
Use BorrowFlag instead of explicit isize
The integer type tracking borrow count has a typedef called `BorrowFlag`. This type should be used instead of explicit `isize`.
[doc] `poll_fn`: explain how to `pin` captured state safely
Usage of `Pin::new_unchecked(&mut …)` is dangerous with `poll_fn`, even though the `!Unpin`-infectiousness has made things smoother. Nonetheless, there are easy ways to avoid the need for any `unsafe` altogether, be it through `Box::pin`ning, or the `pin!` macro. Since the latter only works within an `async` context, showing an example artificially introducing one ought to help people navigate this subtlety with safety and confidence.
## Preview
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9920355/230092494-da22fdcb-0b8f-4ff4-a2ac-aa7d9ead077a.mov
```@rustbot``` label +A-docs
[libs] Simplify `unchecked_{shl,shr}`
There's no need for the `const_eval_select` dance here. And while I originally wrote the `.try_into().unwrap_unchecked()` implementation here, it's kinda a mess in MIR -- this new one is substantially simpler, as shown by the old one being above the inlining threshold but the new one being below it in the `mir-opt/inline/unchecked_shifts` tests.
We don't need `u32::checked_shl` doing a dance through both `Result` *and* `Option` 🙃
Usage of `Pin::new_unchecked(&mut …)` is dangerous with `poll_fn`, even
though the `!Unpin`-infectiousness has made things smoother.
Nonetheless, there are easy ways to avoid the need for any `unsafe`
altogether, be it through `Box::pin`ning, or the `pin!` macro. Since the
latter only works within an `async` context, showing an example
artifically introducing one ought to help people navigate this subtlety
with safety and confidence.
