rust/compiler/rustc_const_eval/src, branch beta

Rollup merge of #146178 - folkertdev:static-align, r=jdonszelmann,ralfjung,traviscross

2025-09-10T12:17:38+00:00

Implement `#[rustc_align_static(N)]` on `static`s Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/146177 ```rust #![feature(static_align)] #[rustc_align_static(64)] static SO_ALIGNED: u64 = 0; ``` We need a different attribute than `rustc_align` because unstable attributes are tied to their feature (we can't have two unstable features use the same unstable attribute). Otherwise this uses all of the same infrastructure as `#[rustc_align]`. r? `@traviscross`

allow `#[rustc_align_static(N)]` on `static`s

2025-09-09T19:54:54+00:00

We need a different attribute than `rustc_align` because unstable attributes are tied to their feature (we can't have two unstable features use the same unstable attribute). Otherwise this uses all of the same infrastructure as `#[rustc_align]`.

Auto merge of #145717 - BoxyUwU:erase_regions_rename, r=lcnr

2025-09-09T15:04:44+00:00

rename erase_regions to erase_and_anonymize_regions I find it consistently confusing that `erase_regions` does more than replacing regions with `'erased`. it also makes some code look real goofy to be writing manual folders to erase regions with a comment saying "we cant use erase regions" :> or code that re-calls erase_regions on types with regions already erased just to anonymize all the bound regions. r? lcnr idk how i feel about the name being almost twice as long now

erase_regions to erase_and_anonymize_regions

2025-09-09T12:49:16+00:00

Rollup merge of #146324 - RalfJung:no-ptr-fragment, r=oli-obk

2025-09-09T04:35:05+00:00

const-eval: disable pointer fragment support This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/146291 by disabling pointer fragment support for const-eval. I want to properly fix this eventually, but won't get to it in the next few weeks, so this is an emergency patch to prevent the buggy implementation from landing on stable. The beta cutoff is on Sep 12th so if this PR lands after that, we'll need a backport.

fixup limit handling code

2025-09-08T22:07:12+00:00

const-eval: disable pointer fragment support

2025-09-08T11:22:52+00:00

Allow static regions in `type_name`.

2025-09-08T09:35:47+00:00

Fixes #146249.

Rollup merge of #144885 - zachs18:ptr_guaranteed_cmp_more, r=RalfJung

2025-08-26T04:19:16+00:00

Implement some more checks in `ptr_guaranteed_cmp`. * Pointers with different residues modulo their allocations' least common alignment are never equal. * Pointers to the same static allocation are equal if and only if they have the same offset. * Pointers to different non-zero-sized static allocations are unequal if both point within their allocation, and not on opposite ends. Tracking issue for `const_raw_ptr_comparison`: This should not affect `is_null`, the only usage of this intrinsic on stable. Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/144584

Implement some more checks for `ptr_guaranteed_cmp` in consteval:

2025-08-23T17:09:07+00:00

Pointers with different residues modulo their least common allocation alignment are never equal. Pointers to the same static allocation are equal if and only if they have the same offset. Strictly in-bounds (in-bounds and not one-past-the-end) pointers to different static allocations are always unequal. A pointer cannot be equal to an integer if `ptr-int` cannot be null. Also adds more tests for `ptr_guaranteed_cmp`. Co-authored-by: Ralf Jung