Implement (but don't use) valtree and refactor in preparation of use
This PR does not cause any functional change. It refactors various things that are needed to make valtrees possible. This refactoring got big enough that I decided I'd want it reviewed as a PR instead of trying to make one huge PR with all the changes.
cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` on the following commits:
* 2027184 implement valtree
* eeecea9 fallible Scalar -> ScalarInt
* 042f663 ScalarInt convenience methods
cc `@eddyb` on ef04a6d
cc `@rust-lang/wg-mir-opt` for cf1700c (`mir::Constant` can now represent either a `ConstValue` or a `ty::Const`, and it is totally possible to have two different representations for the same value)
valtree is a version of constants that is inherently safe to be used within types.
This is in contrast to ty::Const which can have different representations of the same value. These representation differences can show up in hashing or equality comparisons, breaking type equality of otherwise equal types.
valtrees do not have this problem.
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #81309 (always eagerly eval consts in Relate)
- #82217 (Edition-specific preludes)
- #82807 (rustdoc: Remove redundant enableSearchInput function)
- #82924 (WASI: Switch to crt1-command.o to enable support for new-style commands)
- #82949 (Do not attempt to unlock envlock in child process after a fork.)
- #82955 (fix: wrong word)
- #82962 (Treat header as first paragraph for shortened markdown descriptions)
- #82976 (fix error message for copy(_nonoverlapping) overflow)
- #82977 (Rename `Option::get_or_default` to `get_or_insert_default`)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Implement RFC 2945: "C-unwind" ABI
## Implement RFC 2945: "C-unwind" ABI
This branch implements [RFC 2945]. The tracking issue for this RFC is #74990.
The feature gate for the issue is `#![feature(c_unwind)]`.
This RFC was created as part of the ffi-unwind project group tracked at rust-lang/lang-team#19.
### Changes
Further details will be provided in commit messages, but a high-level overview
of the changes follows:
* A boolean `unwind` payload is added to the `C`, `System`, `Stdcall`,
and `Thiscall` variants, marking whether unwinding across FFI boundaries is
acceptable. The cases where each of these variants' `unwind` member is true
correspond with the `C-unwind`, `system-unwind`, `stdcall-unwind`, and
`thiscall-unwind` ABI strings introduced in RFC 2945 [3].
* This commit adds a `c_unwind` feature gate for the new ABI strings.
Tests for this feature gate are included in `src/test/ui/c-unwind/`, which
ensure that this feature gate works correctly for each of the new ABIs.
A new language features entry in the unstable book is added as well.
* We adjust the `rustc_middle::ty::layout::fn_can_unwind` function,
used to compute whether or not a `FnAbi` object represents a function that
should be able to unwind when `panic=unwind` is in use.
* Changes are also made to
`rustc_mir_build::build::should_abort_on_panic` so that the function ABI is
used to determind whether it should abort, assuming that the `panic=unwind`
strategy is being used, and no explicit unwind attribute was provided.
[RFC 2945]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2945-c-unwind-abi.md
Add Option::get_or_default
Tracking issue: #82901
The original issue is #55042, which was closed, but for an invalid reason (see discussion there). Opening this to reconsider (I hope that's okay). It seems like the only gap for `Option` being "entry-like".
I ran into a need for this method where I had a `Vec<Option<MyData>>` and wanted to do `vec[n].get_or_default().my_data_method()`. Using an `Option` as an inner component of a data structure is probably where the need for this will normally arise.
Stabilize `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint
This makes it possible to override the level of the `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn`, as proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71668#issuecomment-729770896.
Tracking issue: #71668
r? ```@nikomatsakis``` cc ```@SimonSapin``` ```@RalfJung```
# Stabilization report
This is a stabilization report for `#![feature(unsafe_block_in_unsafe_fn)]`.
## Summary
Currently, the body of unsafe functions is an unsafe block, i.e. you can perform unsafe operations inside.
The `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint, stabilized here, can be used to change this behavior, so performing unsafe operations in unsafe functions requires an unsafe block.
For now, the lint is allow-by-default, which means that this PR does not change anything without overriding the lint level.
For more information, see [RFC 2585](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2585-unsafe-block-in-unsafe-fn.md)
### Example
```rust
// An `unsafe fn` for demonstration purposes.
// Calling this is an unsafe operation.
unsafe fn unsf() {}
// #[allow(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)] by default,
// the behavior of `unsafe fn` is unchanged
unsafe fn allowed() {
// Here, no `unsafe` block is needed to
// perform unsafe operations...
unsf();
// ...and any `unsafe` block is considered
// unused and is warned on by the compiler.
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[warn(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn warned() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause the compiler to emit a warning.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn denied() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause a compilation error.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
```
### Overview
This commit begins the implementation work for RFC 2945. For more
information, see the rendered RFC [1] and tracking issue [2].
A boolean `unwind` payload is added to the `C`, `System`, `Stdcall`,
and `Thiscall` variants, marking whether unwinding across FFI
boundaries is acceptable. The cases where each of these variants'
`unwind` member is true correspond with the `C-unwind`,
`system-unwind`, `stdcall-unwind`, and `thiscall-unwind` ABI strings
introduced in RFC 2945 [3].
### Feature Gate and Unstable Book
This commit adds a `c_unwind` feature gate for the new ABI strings.
Tests for this feature gate are included in `src/test/ui/c-unwind/`,
which ensure that this feature gate works correctly for each of the
new ABIs.
A new language features entry in the unstable book is added as well.
### Further Work To Be Done
This commit does not proceed to implement the new unwinding ABIs,
and is intentionally scoped specifically to *defining* the ABIs and
their feature flag.
### One Note on Test Churn
This will lead to some test churn, in re-blessing hash tests, as the
deleted comment in `src/librustc_target/spec/abi.rs` mentioned,
because we can no longer guarantee the ordering of the `Abi`
variants.
While this is a downside, this decision was made bearing in mind
that RFC 2945 states the following, in the "Other `unwind` Strings"
section [3]:
> More unwind variants of existing ABI strings may be introduced,
> with the same semantics, without an additional RFC.
Adding a new variant for each of these cases, rather than specifying
a payload for a given ABI, would quickly become untenable, and make
working with the `Abi` enum prone to mistakes.
This approach encodes the unwinding information *into* a given ABI,
to account for the future possibility of other `-unwind` ABI
strings.
### Ignore Directives
`ignore-*` directives are used in two of our `*-unwind` ABI test
cases.
Specifically, the `stdcall-unwind` and `thiscall-unwind` test cases
ignore architectures that do not support `stdcall` and
`thiscall`, respectively.
These directives are cribbed from
`src/test/ui/c-variadic/variadic-ffi-1.rs` for `stdcall`, and
`src/test/ui/extern/extern-thiscall.rs` for `thiscall`.
This would otherwise fail on some targets, see:
fcf697f902
### Footnotes
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2945-c-unwind-abi.md
[2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74990
[3]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2945-c-unwind-abi.md#other-unwind-abi-strings
This updates all places where match branches check on StatementKind or UseContext.
This doesn't properly implement them, but adds TODOs where they are, and also adds some best
guesses to what they should be in some cases.
Change x64 size checks to not apply to x32.
Rust contains various size checks conditional on target_arch = "x86_64", but these checks were never intended to apply to x86_64-unknown-linux-gnux32. Add target_pointer_width = "64" to the conditions.
Disable destination propagation on all mir-opt-levels
The new `// compile-flags: -Zunsound-mir-opts` are inserted without an extra newline to avoid introducing a large mir-opt diff.
Rust contains various size checks conditional on target_arch = "x86_64",
but these checks were never intended to apply to
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnux32. Add target_pointer_width = "64" to the
conditions.
Add suggestion `.collect()` for iterators in iterators
Closes#81584
```
error[E0515]: cannot return value referencing function parameter `y`
--> main3.rs:4:38
|
4 | ... .map(|y| y.iter().map(|x| x + 1))
| -^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |
| returns a value referencing data owned by the current function
| `y` is borrowed here
| help: Maybe use `.collect()` to allocate the iterator
```
Added the suggestion: `help: Maybe use `.collect()` to allocate the iterator`
Implement NOOP_METHOD_CALL lint
Implements the beginnings of https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/67 - a lint for detecting noop method calls (e.g, calling `<&T as Clone>::clone()` when `T: !Clone`).
This PR does not fully realize the vision and has a few limitations that need to be addressed either before merging or in subsequent PRs:
* [ ] No UFCS support
* [ ] The warning message is pretty plain
* [ ] Doesn't work for `ToOwned`
The implementation uses [`Instance::resolve`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/instance/struct.Instance.html#method.resolve) which is normally later in the compiler. It seems that there are some invariants that this function relies on that we try our best to respect. For instance, it expects substitutions to have happened, which haven't yet performed, but we check first for `needs_subst` to ensure we're dealing with a monomorphic type.
Thank you to ```@davidtwco,``` ```@Aaron1011,``` and ```@wesleywiser``` for helping me at various points through out this PR ❤️.
