emit `StorageLive` and schedule `StorageDead` for `let`-`else`'s bindings after matching
This PR removes special handling of `let`-`else`, so that `StorageLive`s are emitted and `StorageDead`s are scheduled only after pattern-matching has succeeded. This means `StorageDead`s will no longer appear for all of its bindings on the `else` branch (because they're not live yet) and its drops&`StorageDead`s will happen together like they do elsewhere, rather than having all drops first, then all `StorageDead`s.
This fixesrust-lang/rust#142056, and is therefore a breaking change. I believe it'll need a crater run and a T-lang nomination/fcp thereafter. Specifically, this makes drop-checking slightly more restrictive for `let`-`else` to match the behavior of other variable binding forms. An alternative approach could be to change the relative order of drops and `StorageDead`s for other binding forms to make drop-checking more permissive, but making that consistent would be a significantly more involved change.
r? mir
cc `````@dingxiangfei2009`````
`````@rustbot````` label +T-lang +needs-crater
MIR-build: No longer emit assumes in enum-as casting
This just uses the `valid_range` from the backend, so it's duplicating the range metadata that now we include on parameters and loads, and thus no longer seems to be useful -- notably there's no codegen test failures from removing it.
(Because it's using data from the same source as the backend annotations, it doesn't do anything to mitigate things like rust-lang/rust#144388 where the range in the layout is more permissive than the actual possible discriminants. A variant of this that actually checked the discriminants more specifically might be useful, so could potentially be added in future, but I don't think the *current* checks are actually providing value.)
r? mir
Randomly turns out that this
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121097
The existing method does some non-obvious extra work to collect user types and
build user-type projections, which is specifically needed by `declare_bindings`
and not by the other two callers.
Arbitrary self types v2: pointers feature gate.
The main `arbitrary_self_types` feature gate will shortly be reused for a new version of arbitrary self types which we are amending per [this RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3519-arbitrary-self-types-v2.md). The main amendments are:
* _do_ support `self` types which can't safely implement `Deref`
* do _not_ support generic `self` types
* do _not_ support raw pointers as `self` types.
This PR relates to the last of those bullet points: this strips pointer support from the current `arbitrary_self_types` feature. We expect this to cause some amount of breakage for crates using this unstable feature to allow raw pointer self types. If that's the case, we want to know about it, and we want crate authors to know of the upcoming changes.
For now, this can be resolved by adding the new
`arbitrary_self_types_pointers` feature to such crates. If we determine that use of raw pointers as self types is common, then we may maintain that as an unstable feature even if we come to stabilize the rest of the `arbitrary_self_types` support in future. If we don't hear that this PR is causing breakage, then perhaps we don't need it at all, even behind an unstable feature gate.
[Tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874)
This is [step 4 of the plan outlined here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874#issuecomment-2122179688)
The main `arbitrary_self_types` feature gate will shortly be reused for
a new version of arbitrary self types which we are amending per [this
RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3519-arbitrary-self-types-v2.md).
The main amendments are:
* _do_ support `self` types which can't safely implement `Deref`
* do _not_ support generic `self` types
* do _not_ support raw pointers as `self` types.
This PR relates to the last of those bullet points: this strips pointer
support from the current `arbitrary_self_types` feature.
We expect this to cause some amount of breakage for crates using this
unstable feature to allow raw pointer self types. If that's the case, we
want to know about it, and we want crate authors to know of the upcoming
changes.
For now, this can be resolved by adding the new
`arbitrary_self_types_pointers` feature to such crates. If we determine
that use of raw pointers as self types is common, then we may maintain
that as an unstable feature even if we come to stabilize the rest of the
`arbitrary_self_types` support in future. If we don't hear that this PR
is causing breakage, then perhaps we don't need it at all, even behind
an unstable feature gate.
[Tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874)
This is [step 4 of the plan outlined here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874#issuecomment-2122179688)
Fix regression in the MIR lowering of or-patterns
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126553 I made a silly indexing mistake and regressed the MIR lowering of or-patterns. This fixes it.
r? `@compiler-errors` because I'd like this to be merged quickly 🙏
The only non-obvious changes:
- `building/storage_live_dead_in_statics.rs` has a `#[rustfmt::skip]`
attribute to avoid reformating a table of data.
- Two `.mir` files have slight changes involving line numbers.
- In `unusual_item_types.rs` an `EMIT_MIR` annotation is moved to
outside a function, which is the usual spot, because `tidy` complains
if such a comment is indented.
The commit also tweaks the comments in `rustfmt.toml`.
The `mir!` macro has multiple parts:
- An optional return type annotation.
- A sequence of zero or more local declarations.
- A mandatory starting anonymous basic block, which is brace-delimited.
- A sequence of zero of more additional named basic blocks.
Some `mir!` invocations use braces with a "block" style, like so:
```
mir! {
let _unit: ();
{
let non_copy = S(42);
let ptr = std::ptr::addr_of_mut!(non_copy);
// Inside `callee`, the first argument and `*ptr` are basically
// aliasing places!
Call(_unit = callee(Move(*ptr), ptr), ReturnTo(after_call), UnwindContinue())
}
after_call = {
Return()
}
}
```
Some invocations use parens with a "block" style, like so:
```
mir!(
let x: [i32; 2];
let one: i32;
{
x = [42, 43];
one = 1;
x = [one, 2];
RET = Move(x);
Return()
}
)
```
And some invocations uses parens with a "tighter" style, like so:
```
mir!({
SetDiscriminant(*b, 0);
Return()
})
```
This last style is generally used for cases where just the mandatory
starting basic block is present. Its braces are placed next to the
parens.
This commit changes all `mir!` invocations to use braces with a "block"
style. Why?
- Consistency is good.
- The contents of the invocation is a block of code, so it's odd to use
parens. They are more normally used for function-like macros.
- Most importantly, the next commit will enable rustfmt for
`tests/mir-opt/`. rustfmt is more aggressive about formatting macros
that use parens than macros that use braces. Without this commit's
changes, rustfmt would break a couple of `mir!` macro invocations that
use braces within `tests/mir-opt` by inserting an extraneous comma.
E.g.:
```
mir!(type RET = (i32, bool);, { // extraneous comma after ';'
RET.0 = 1;
RET.1 = true;
Return()
})
```
Switching those `mir!` invocations to use braces avoids that problem,
resulting in this, which is nicer to read as well as being valid
syntax:
```
mir! {
type RET = (i32, bool);
{
RET.0 = 1;
RET.1 = true;
Return()
}
}
```
never patterns: lower never patterns to `Unreachable` in MIR
This lowers a `!` pattern to "goto Unreachable". Ideally I'd like to read from the place to make it clear that the UB is coming from an invalid value, but that's tricky so I'm leaving it for later.
r? `@compiler-errors` how do you feel about a lil bit of MIR lowering
Stuart Cook