| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this implements checks necessary to guarantee that we can actually
perform a tail call. while extremely restrictive, this is what is
documented in the RFC, and all these checks are needed for one reason or
another.
|
|
this is funny though! apparently tidy parsed `.gitignore`, but did not
recognize unignore lines (`!...`), so tidy was ignoring `rustc_mir_build`
this whole time (at least for some lints?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implement the unsafe-fields RFC.
RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#3458
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132922
r? jswrenn
|
|
Detect const in pattern with typo
When writing a constant name incorrectly in a pattern, the pattern will be identified as a new binding. We look for consts in the current crate, consts that where imported in the current crate and for local `let` bindings in case someone got them confused with `const`s.
```
error: unreachable pattern
--> $DIR/const-with-typo-in-pattern-binding.rs:30:9
|
LL | GOOOD => {}
| ----- matches any value
LL |
LL | _ => {}
| ^ no value can reach this
|
help: you might have meant to pattern match against the value of similarly named constant `GOOD` instead of introducing a new catch-all binding
|
LL | GOOD => {}
| ~~~~
```
Fix #132582.
|
|
Co-Authored-By: Jacob Pratt <jacob@jhpratt.dev>
|
|
Make asm label blocks safe context
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119364
`asm!()` is forced to be wrapped inside unsafe. If there's no special treatment, the label blocks would also always be unsafe with no way of opting out. It was suggested that a simple fix is to make asm label blocks safe: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119364#issuecomment-2316037703.
`@rustbot` labels: +A-inline-assembly +F-asm
|
|
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #129838 (uefi: process: Add args support)
- #130800 (Mark `get_mut` and `set_position` in `std::io::Cursor` as const.)
- #132708 (Point at `const` definition when used instead of a binding in a `let` statement)
- #133226 (Make `PointerLike` opt-in instead of built-in)
- #133244 (Account for `wasm32v1-none` when exporting TLS symbols)
- #133257 (Add `UnordMap::clear` method)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Point at `const` definition when used instead of a binding in a `let` statement
Modify `PatKind::InlineConstant` to be `ExpandedConstant` standing in not only for inline `const` blocks but also for `const` items. This allows us to track named `const`s used in patterns when the pattern is a single binding. When we detect that there is a refutable pattern involving a `const` that could have been a binding instead, we point at the `const` item, and suggest renaming. We do this for both `let` bindings and `match` expressions missing a catch-all arm if there's at least one single binding pattern referenced.
After:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | const PAT: u32 = 0;
| -------------- missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
...
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^ pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
help: introduce a variable instead
|
LL | let PAT_var = v1;
| ~~~~~~~
```
Before:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^
| |
| pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
| missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
| help: introduce a variable instead: `PAT_var`
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
```
CC #132582.
|
|
When writing a constant name incorrectly in a pattern, the pattern will be identified as a new binding. We look for consts in the current crate, consts that where imported in the current crate and for local `let` bindings in case someone got them confused with `const`s.
```
error: unreachable pattern
--> $DIR/const-with-typo-in-pattern-binding.rs:30:9
|
LL | GOOOD => {}
| ----- matches any value
LL |
LL | _ => {}
| ^ no value can reach this
|
help: you might have meant to pattern match against the value of similarly named constant `GOOD` instead of introducing a new catch-all binding
|
LL | GOOD => {}
| ~~~~
```
Fix #132582.
|
|
take 2
open up coroutines
tweak the wordings
the lint works up until 2021
We were missing one case, for ADTs, which was
causing `Result` to yield incorrect results.
only include field spans with significant types
deduplicate and eliminate field spans
switch to emit spans to impl Drops
Co-authored-by: Niko Matsakis <nikomat@amazon.com>
collect drops instead of taking liveness diff
apply some suggestions and add explantory notes
small fix on the cache
let the query recurse through coroutine
new suggestion format with extracted variable name
fine-tune the drop span and messages
bugfix on runtime borrows
tweak message wording
filter out ecosystem types earlier
apply suggestions
clippy
check lint level at session level
further restrict applicability of the lint
translate bid into nop for stable mir
detect cycle in type structure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the behavior of the type system not only depends on the current
assumptions, but also the currentnphase of the compiler. This is
mostly necessary as we need to decide whether and how to reveal
opaque types. We track this via the `TypingMode`.
|
|
|
|
- Remove check for "how many path segments is the pattern"
- Check before suggesting if the path has multiple path segments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
error[E0004]: non-exhaustive patterns: `i32::MIN..=3_i32` and `5_i32..=i32::MAX` not covered
--> $DIR/intended-binding-pattern-is-const.rs:2:11
|
LL | match 1 {
| ^ patterns `i32::MIN..=3_i32` and `5_i32..=i32::MAX` not covered
LL | x => {}
| - this pattern doesn't introduce a new catch-all binding, but rather pattern matches against the value of constant `x`
|
= note: the matched value is of type `i32`
note: constant `x` defined here
--> $DIR/intended-binding-pattern-is-const.rs:7:5
|
LL | const x: i32 = 4;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: if you meant to introduce a binding, use a different name
|
LL | x_var => {}
| ++++
help: ensure that all possible cases are being handled by adding a match arm with a wildcard pattern, a match arm with multiple or-patterns as shown, or multiple match arms
|
LL | x => {}, i32::MIN..=3_i32 | 5_i32..=i32::MAX => todo!()
| ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
After:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | const PAT: u32 = 0;
| -------------- missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
...
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^
| |
| pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
| help: introduce a variable instead: `PAT_var`
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
```
Before:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^
| |
| pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
| missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
| help: introduce a variable instead: `PAT_var`
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
```
|
|
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #132651 (Remove attributes from generics in built-in derive macros)
- #132668 (Feature gate yield expressions not in 2024)
- #132771 (test(configure): cover `parse_args` in `src/bootstrap/configure.py`)
- #132895 (Generalize `NonNull::from_raw_parts` per ACP362)
- #132914 (Update grammar in std::cell docs.)
- #132927 (Consolidate type system const evaluation under `traits::evaluate_const`)
- #132935 (Make sure to ignore elided lifetimes when pointing at args for fulfillment errors)
- #132941 (Subtree update of `rust-analyzer`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
cleanup: Remove outdated comment of `thir_body`
When typeck fails, `thir_body` returns `ErrorGuaranteed` rather than empty body.
No other code follows this outdated description except `check_unsafety`, which is also cleaned up in this PR.
|
|
mew
|
|
Remove unnecessary pub enum glob-imports from `rustc_middle::ty`
We used to have an idiom in the compiler where we'd prefix or suffix all the variants of an enum, for example `BoundRegionKind`, with something like `Br`, and then *glob-import* that enum variant directly.
`@noratrieb` brought this up, and I think that it's easier to read when we just use the normal style `EnumName::Variant`.
This PR is a bit large, but it's just naming.
The only somewhat opinionated change that this PR does is rename `BorrowKind::Imm` to `BorrowKind::Immutable` and same for the other variants. I think these enums are used sparingly enough that the extra length is fine.
r? `@noratrieb` or reassign
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This makes it significantly easier to debug bugs of this kind.
|
|
r=jieyouxu,compiler-errors
compiler: Move `rustc_target::spec::abi::Abi` to `rustc_abi::ExternAbi`
Lift `enum Abi` from its rather odd place in the middle of rustc_target, and make it available again from rustc_abi. You know, the crate where you would expect the enum that describes all the ABIs to be? The platform-neutral ones, at least. This will help further refactoring of how we handle ABIs in the near future[^0].
Rename `Abi` to `ExternAbi` because quite a lot of the compiler overloads the concept of "ABI" enough that the existing name is imprecise and it is often renamed _anyway_. Often this was to avoid conflicts with the *other* type formerly known as `Abi` (now named BackendRepr[^1]), but sometimes it is just for clarity, and this name seems more self-explanatory. It does get reexported, though, using its old name, to reduce the odds of merge-conflicting over the entire tree.
All of `ExternAbi`'s friends come along for the ride, which costs adding some optional dependencies to the rustc_abi crate. However, all of this also allows simply moving three crates entirely off rustc_target:
- rustc_hir_pretty
- rustc_lint_defs
- rustc_mir_build
This odd selection is mostly to demonstrate a secondary motivation: The majority of the front-end of the compiler should be as target-agnostic as possible, and it is easier to assure this if they simply don't depend on the crate that describes targets. Note that I didn't migrate crates that don't benefit from it in this way yet, and I didn't survey every last crate.
[^0]: This is being undertaken as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119183
[^1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132246
|
|
Remove region from adjustments
It's not necessary to store this region, because it's only used in THIR and MemCat/ExprUse, both of which already basically only deal with erased regions anyways.
|
|
Completely abandon usage of rustc_target in these crates, as
they need no special knowledge of rustc's target tuples.
|
|
Rename `rustc_abi::Abi` to `BackendRepr`
Remove the confabulation of `rustc_abi::Abi` with what "ABI" actually means by renaming it to `BackendRepr`, and rename `Abi::Aggregate` to `BackendRepr::Memory`. The type never actually represented how things are passed, as that has to have `PassMode` considered, at minimum, but rather it just is how we represented some things to the backend. This conflation arose because LLVM, the primary backend at the time, would lower certain IR forms using certain ABIs. Even that only somewhat was true, as it broke down when one ventured significantly afield of what is described by the System V AMD64 ABI either by using different architectures, ABI-modifying IR annotations, the same architecture **with different ISA extensions enabled**, or other... unexpected delights.
Unfortunately both names are still somewhat of a misnomer right now, as people have written code for years based on this misunderstanding. Still, their original names are even moreso, and for better or worse, this backend code hasn't received as much maintenance as the rest of the compiler, lately. Actually arriving at a correct end-state will simply require us to disentangle a lot of code in order to fix, much of it pointlessly repeated in several places. Thus this is not an "actual fix", just a way to deflect further misunderstandings.
|
|
TypingMode: merge intercrate, reveal, and defining_opaque_types
This adds `TypingMode` and uses it in most places. We do not yet remove `Reveal` from `param_env`s. This and other future work as tracked in #132279 and via `FIXME`s.
Fetching the `TypingMode` of the `InferCtxt` asserts that the `TypingMode` agrees with `ParamEnv::reveal` to make sure we don't introduce any subtle bugs here. This will be unnecessary once `ParamEnv::reveal` no longer exists.
As the `TypingMode` is now a part of the query input, I've merged the coherence and non-coherence caches for the new solver. I've also enabled the local `infcx` cache during coherence by clearing the cache when forking it with a different `TypingMode`.
#### `TypingMode::from_param_env`
I am using this even in cases where I know that the `param_env` will always be `Reveal::UserFacing`. This is to make it easier to correctly refactor this code in the future, any time we use `Reveal::UserFacing` in a body while not defining its opaque types is incorrect and should use a `TypingMode` which only reveals opaques defined by that body instead, cc #124598
r? ``@compiler-errors``
|
|
Don't lint `irrefutable_let_patterns` on leading patterns if `else if` let-chains
fixes #128661
Is there any preference where the test goes? There looks to be several places it could fit.
|
|
The initial naming of "Abi" was an awful mistake, conveying wrong ideas
about how psABIs worked and even more about what the enum meant.
It was only meant to represent the way the value would be described to
a codegen backend as it was lowered to that intermediate representation.
It was never meant to mean anything about the actual psABI handling!
The conflation is because LLVM typically will associate a certain form
with a certain ABI, but even that does not hold when the special cases
that actually exist arise, plus the IR annotations that modify the ABI.
Reframe `rustc_abi::Abi` as the `BackendRepr` of the type, and rename
`BackendRepr::Aggregate` as `BackendRepr::Memory`. Unfortunately, due to
the persistent misunderstandings, this too is now incorrect:
- Scattered ABI-relevant code is entangled with BackendRepr
- We do not always pre-compute a correct BackendRepr that reflects how
we "actually" want this value to be handled, so we leave the backend
interface to also inject various special-cases here
- In some cases `BackendRepr::Memory` is a "real" aggregate, but in
others it is in fact using memory, and in some cases it is a scalar!
Our rustc-to-backend lowering code handles this sort of thing right now.
That will eventually be addressed by lifting duplicated lowering code
to either rustc_codegen_ssa or rustc_target as appropriate.
|
|
let-chains.
|
|
r=traviscross,lcnr
Stabilize if_let_rescope
Close #131154
Tracked by #124085
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taking a raw ref (`&raw (const|mut)`) of a deref of pointer (`*ptr`) is always safe
T-opsem decided in https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1387 that `*ptr` is only unsafe if the place is accessed. This means that taking a raw ref of a deref expr is always safe, since it doesn't constitute a read.
This also relaxes the `DEREF_NULLPTR` lint to stop warning in the case of raw ref of a deref'd nullptr, and updates its docs to reflect that change in the UB specification.
This does not change the behavior of `addr_of!((*ptr).field)`, since field projections still require the projection is in-bounds.
I'm on the fence whether this requires an FCP, since it's something that is guaranteed by the reference you could ostensibly call this a bugfix since we were counting truly safe operations as unsafe. Perhaps someone on opsem has a strong opinion? cc `@rust-lang/opsem`
|
