148725 moved the default to being homogeneous; this adds heterogeneous ones back under an obvious-bikeshed syntax so people can experiment with that as well.
Essentially resolves 149025 by letting them move to this syntax instead.
`c_variadic`: Add future-incompatibility warning for `...` arguments without a pattern outside of `extern` blocks
This PR makes `...` arguments without a pattern in non-foreign functions (such as the argument in `unsafe extern "C" fn f(...) {}`) a future-compatibility warning; making this error would be consistent with how `unsafe extern "C" fn f(u32) {}` is handled. Allowing `...` arguments without a pattern in non-foreign functions is a source of confusion for programmers coming from C, where the `...` parameter is never named and instead calling `va_start` is required; disallowing `...` arguments without a pattern also improves the overall consistency of the Rust language by matching the treatment of other arguments without patterns. `...` arguments without a pattern in `extern` blocks (such as `unsafe extern "C" { fn f(...); }`) continue to compile without warnings after this PR, as they are already stable and heavily used (and don't cause the mentioned confusion as they are just being used in function declarations).
As all the syntax gating for `c_variadic` has been done post-expansion, this is technically a breaking change. In particular, code like this has compiled on stable since Rust 1.35.0:
```rust
#[cfg(any())] // Equivalent to the more recent #[cfg(false)]
unsafe extern "C" fn bar(_: u32, ...) {}
```
Since this is more or less a stability hole and a Crater run shows only the `binrw` crate is using this, I think it would be ok to break this. This will require a lang FCP.
The idea of rejecting `...` pre-expansion was first raised here https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143546#issuecomment-3043142052.
Tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#44930
cc `@folkertdev` `@workingjubilee`
r? `@joshtriplett`
Use `splice` to avoid shifting the other items twice.
Put `extern crate std;` first so it's already resolved when we resolve `::std::prelude::rust_20XX`.
Implement asymmetrical precedence for closures and jumps
I have been through a series of asymmetrical precedence designs in Syn, and finally have one that I like and is worth backporting into rustc. It is based on just 2 bits of state: `next_operator_can_begin_expr` and `next_operator_can_continue_expr`.
Asymmetrical precedence is the thing that enables `(return 1) + 1` to require parentheses while `1 + return 1` does not, despite `+` always having stronger precedence than `return` [according to the Rust Reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.83.0/reference/expressions.html#expression-precedence). This is facilitated by `next_operator_can_continue_expr`.
Relatedly, it is the thing that enables `(return) - 1` to require parentheses while `return + 1` does not, despite `+` and `-` having exactly the same precedence. This is facilitated by `next_operator_can_begin_expr`.
**Example:**
```rust
macro_rules! repro {
($e:expr) => {
$e - $e;
$e + $e;
};
}
fn main() {
repro!{return}
repro!{return 1}
}
```
`-Zunpretty=expanded` **Before:**
```console
fn main() {
(return) - (return);
(return) + (return);
(return 1) - (return 1);
(return 1) + (return 1);
}
```
**After:**
```console
fn main() {
(return) - return;
return + return;
(return 1) - return 1;
(return 1) + return 1;
}
```
In the AST the "then" block is represented as a `Block`. In HIR the
"then" block is represented as an `Expr` that happens to always be.
`ExprKind::Block`. By deconstructing the `ExprKind::Block` to extract
the block within, things print properly.
For `issue-82392.rs`, note that we no longer print a type after the
"then" block. This is good, it now matches how we don't print a type for
the "else" block. (Well, we do print a type after the "else" block, but
it's for the whole if/else.)
Also tighten up some of the pattern matching -- these block expressions
within if/else will never have labels.
Indents for `cbox` and `ibox` are 0 or `INDENT_UNIT` (4) except for a
couple of places which are `INDENT_UNIT - 1` for no clear reason.
This commit changes the three space indents to four spaces.
Implement `pin!()` using `super let`
Tracking issue for super let: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076
This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.
This means we can remove [the hack](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138717) we had to put in to fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138596.
It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.
While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.
It'd help [the experiment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals`
Closes#131204
`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated
This will end up conflicting with the test in #138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating
--
# Stabilization Report
## General design
### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?
[RFC 3695](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695), none.
### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.
None
### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?
None
## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?
Yes; only positive feedback was received.
## Implementation quality
### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)
Implemented in [#131034](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131034).
### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature
- [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6d71251cf9e40326461f90f8ff9a7024706aea87/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs)
- [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6d71251cf9e40326461f90f8ff9a7024706aea87/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs)
- [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs)
- [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs)
- Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs`
- Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs`
### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?
The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature.
### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?
None
### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
- `@clubby789` (RFC)
- `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc)
### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?
`rustdoc`'s unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized.
## Type system and execution rules
### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)
A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.
Printing "no pattern" as `_` isn't ideal, but better than crashing, and
HIR pretty-printing already has plenty of imperfections. The added `f2`
and `f6` examples are ones that triggered the crash.
Note that some of the added examples are printed badly, e.g.
`fn(, ...)`. The next commit will fix those.
Fixes#139633.
Note that some of the output is currently bogus, with missing params and
args:
```
fn add(: _, : _) -> _ { m::add(, ) }
```
The next commit will fix this.
Autodiff batching
Enzyme supports batching, which is especially known from the ML side when training neural networks.
There we would normally have a training loop, where in each iteration we would pass in some data (e.g. an image), and a target vector. Based on how close we are with our prediction we compute our loss, and then use backpropagation to compute the gradients and update our weights.
That's quite inefficient, so what you normally do is passing in a batch of 8/16/.. images and targets, and compute the gradients for those all at once, allowing better optimizations.
Enzyme supports batching in two ways, the first one (which I implemented here) just accepts a Batch size,
and then each Dual/Duplicated argument has not one, but N shadow arguments. So instead of
```rs
for i in 0..100 {
df(x[i], y[i], 1234);
}
```
You can now do
```rs
for i in 0..100.step_by(4) {
df(x[i+0],x[i+1],x[i+2],x[i+3], y[i+0], y[i+1], y[i+2], y[i+3], 1234);
}
```
which will give the same results, but allows better compiler optimizations. See the testcase for details.
There is a second variant, where we can mark certain arguments and instead of having to pass in N shadow arguments, Enzyme assumes that the argument is N times longer. I.e. instead of accepting 4 slices with 12 floats each, we would accept one slice with 48 floats. I'll implement this over the next days.
I will also add more tests for both modes.
For any one preferring some more interactive explanation, here's a video of Tim's llvm dev talk, where he presents his work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edvaLAL5RqU
I'll also add some other docs to the dev guide and user docs in another PR.
r? ghost
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124509
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/135283
remove `feature(inline_const_pat)`
Summarizing https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/144729-t-types/topic/remove.20feature.28inline_const_pat.29.20and.20shared.20borrowck.
With https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/129 we will start to borrowck items together with their typeck parent. This is necessary to correctly support opaque types, blocking the new solver and TAIT/ATPIT stabilization with the old one. This means that we cannot really support `inline_const_pat` as they are implemented right now:
- we want to typeck inline consts together with their parent body to allow inference to flow both ways and to allow the const to refer to local regions of its parent.This means we also need to borrowck the inline const together with its parent as that's necessary to properly support opaque types
- we want the inline const pattern to participate in exhaustiveness checking
- to participate in exhaustiveness checking we need to evaluate it, which requires borrowck, which now relies on borrowck of the typeck root, which ends up checking exhaustiveness again. **This is a query cycle**.
There are 4 possible ways to handle this:
- stop typechecking inline const patterns together with their parent
- causes inline const patterns to be different than inline const exprs
- prevents bidirectional inference, we need to either fail to compile `if let const { 1 } = 1u32` or `if let const { 1u32 } = 1`
- region inference for inline consts will be harder, it feels non-trivial to support inline consts referencing local regions from the parent fn
- inline consts no longer participate in exhaustiveness checking. Treat them like `pat if pat == const { .. }` instead. We then only evaluate them after borrowck
- difference between `const { 1 }` and `const FOO: usize = 1; match x { FOO => () }`. This is confusing
- do they carry their weight if they are now just equivalent to using an if-guard
- delay exhaustiveness checking until after borrowck
- should be possible in theory, but is a quite involved change and may have some unexpected challenges
- remove this feature for now
I believe we should either delay exhaustiveness checking or remove the feature entirely. As moving exhaustiveness checking to after borrow checking is quite complex I think the right course of action is to fully remove the feature for now and to add it again once/if we've got that implementation figured out.
`const { .. }`-expressions remain stable. These seem to have been the main motivation for https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/2920.
r? types
cc `@rust-lang/types` `@rust-lang/lang` #76001
aerooneqq