| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Previous, a panic during const evaluation would go through the
`const_err` lint. This PR ensures that such a panic always causes
compilation to fail.
|
|
A bit more polish on const eval errors
This PR adds a bit more polish to the const eval errors:
- a slight improvement to the PME messages from #85633: I mentioned there that the erroneous item's paths were dependent on the environment, and could be displayed fully qualified or not. This can obscure the items when they come from a dependency. This PR uses the pretty-printing code ensuring the items' paths are not trimmed.
- whenever there are generics involved in an item where const evaluation errors out, the error message now displays the instance and its const arguments, so that we can see which instantiated item and compile-time values lead to the error.
So we get this slight improvement for our beloved `stdarch` example, on nightly:
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
8 | assert!(IMM >= MIN && IMM <= MAX, "IMM value not in expected range");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the evaluated program panicked at 'IMM value not in expected range', /rustc/9111b8ae9793f18179a1336417618fc07a9cac85/library/core/src/../../stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
```
to this PR's:
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of `core::core_arch::macros::ValidateConstImm::<51_i32, 0_i32, 15_i32>::VALID` failed
--> ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
8 | assert!(IMM >= MIN && IMM <= MAX, "IMM value not in expected range");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the evaluated program panicked at 'IMM value not in expected range', ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
```
with this PR.
Of course this is an idea from Oli, so maybe r? `@oli-obk` if they have the time.
|
|
const-eval: disallow unwinding across functions that `!fn_can_unwind()`
Following https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/pull/1776#discussion_r633074343, so r? `@RalfJung`
This PR turns `unwind` in `StackPopCleanup::Goto` into a new enum `StackPopUnwind`, with a `NotAllowed` variant to indicate that unwinding is not allowed. This variant is chosen based on `rustc_middle::ty::layout::fn_can_unwind()` in `eval_fn_call()` when pushing the frame. A check is added in `unwind_to_block()` to report UB if unwinding happens across a `StackPopUnwind::NotAllowed` frame.
Tested with Miri `HEAD` with [minor changes](https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/compare/HEAD..9cf3c7f0d86325a586fbcbf2acdc9232b861f1d8) and the rust-lang/miri#1776 branch with [these changes](https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/compare/d866c1c52f48bf562720383455b75c257bb1ad92..626638fbfe2fff34648dda29a34d59db498a6e52).
|
|
involved
|
|
called by `eval_fn_call()`
|
|
|
|
- make Allocation API offset-based (no more Pointer)
- make Memory API higher-level (combine checking for access and getting access into one operation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add allocation information to undefined behaviour errors.
So far I'm looking on information on whether the error messages are suitable.
Fixes #53325.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: Ralf Jung <post@ralfj.de>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
forseeable future
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pass large interpreter types by reference, not value
r? `@ghost`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rest in peace match bool <3
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove memoization leftovers from constant evaluation machine
Closes #79667
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
functions that does allocations
|
|
closes #79667
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
