2229: Fix issues with move closures and mutability
This PR fixes two issues when feature `capture_disjoint_fields` is used.
1. Can't mutate using a mutable reference
2. Move closures try to move value out through a reference.
To do so, we
1. Compute the mutability of the capture and store it as part of the `CapturedPlace` that is written in TypeckResults
2. Restrict capture precision. Note this is temporary for now, to allow the feature to be used with move closures and ByValue captures and might change depending on discussions with the lang team.
- No Derefs are captured for ByValue captures, since that will result in value behind a reference getting moved.
- No projections are applied to raw pointers since these require unsafe blocks. We capture
them completely.
r? `````@nikomatsakis`````
Support FRU pattern with `[feature(capture_disjoint_fields)]`
In case of a functional record update syntax for creating a structure, `ExprUseVisitor` to only detect the precise use of some of the field in the `..x` part of the syntax. However, when we start building MIR, we
1. First, build the place for `x`
2. and then, add precise field projections so that only some parts of `x` end up getting read.
When `capture_disjoint_fields` is enabled, and FRU is used within a closure `x` won't be completely captured, and therefore the first step will fail. This PR updates `mir_build` to create a place builder in the first step and then create place from the builder only after applying the field projection.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/32
r? ``````@nikomatsakis``````
When `capture_disjoint_fields` is not enabled, checking if the root variable
binding is mutable would suffice.
However with the feature enabled, the captured place might be mutable
because it dereferences a mutable reference.
This PR computes the mutability of each capture after capture analysis
in rustc_typeck. We store this in `ty::CapturedPlace` and then use
`ty::CapturedPlace::mutability` in mir_build and borrow_check.
Refractor a few more types to `rustc_type_ir`
In the continuation of #79169, ~~blocked on that PR~~.
This PR:
- moves `IntVarValue`, `FloatVarValue`, `InferTy` (and friends) and `Variance`
- creates the `IntTy`, `UintTy` and `FloatTy` enums in `rustc_type_ir`, based on their `ast` and `chalk_ir` equilavents, and uses them for types in the rest of the compiler.
~~I will split up that commit to make this easier to review and to have a better commit history.~~
EDIT: done, I split the PR in commits of 200-ish lines each
r? `````@nikomatsakis````` cc `````@jackh726`````
implement ptr::write without dedicated intrinsic
This makes `ptr::write` more consistent with `ptr::write_unaligned`, `ptr::read`, `ptr::read_unaligned`, all of which are implemented in terms of `copy_nonoverlapping`.
This means we can also remove `move_val_init` implementations in codegen and Miri, and its special handling in the borrow checker.
Also see [this Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/ptr.3A.3Aread.20vs.20ptr.3A.3Awrite).
Rust prints "type `&A` is non-empty" even is A is empty.
This is the intended behavior, but can be confusing.
This commit adds a note to non-exhaustive pattern errors if they are a
reference to something uninhabited.
I did not add tests to check that the note is not shown for
non-references or inhabited references, because this is already done
in other tests.
Maybe the added test is superfluous, because
`always-inhabited-union-ref` already checks for this case.
This does not handle &&Void or &&&void etc. I could add those as special
cases as well and ignore people who need quadruple
references.
Fixes#78123
Rename `overlapping_patterns` lint
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65477. I also tweaked a few things along the way.
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` modify labels: +A-exhaustiveness-checking
Improve and fix diagnostics of exhaustiveness checking
Primarily, this fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/56379. This also fixes incorrect interactions between or-patterns and slice patterns that I discovered while working on #56379. Those two examples show the incorrect diagnostics:
```rust
match &[][..] {
[true] => {}
[true // detected as unreachable but that's not true
| false, ..] => {}
_ => {}
}
match (true, None) {
(true, Some(_)) => {}
(false, Some(true)) => {}
(true | false, None | Some(true // should be detected as unreachable
| false)) => {}
}
```
I did not measure any perf impact. However, I suspect that [`616ba9f`](616ba9f9f7) should have a negative impact on large or-patterns. I'll see what the perf run says; I have optimization ideas up my sleeve if needed.
EDIT: I initially had a noticeable perf impact that I thought unavoidable. I then proceeded to avoid it x)
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` label +A-exhaustiveness-checking
This is elegant but a bit of a perf gamble. That said, or-patterns
rarely have many branches and it's easy to optimize or revert if we ever
need to. In the meantime simpler code is worth it.
