coverage: Rename MC/DC `conditions_num` to `num_conditions`
Updated version of #124571, without the other changes that were split out into #125108 and #125700.
This value represents a quantity of conditions, not an ID, so the new spelling is more appropriate.
Some of the code touched by this PR could perhaps use some other changes, but I would prefer to keep this PR as a simple renaming and avoid scope creep.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
Make `body_owned_by` return the `Body` instead of just the `BodyId`
fixes#125677
Almost all `body_owned_by` callers immediately called `body`, too, so just return `Body` directly.
This makes the inline-const query feeding more robust, as all calls to `body_owned_by` will now yield a body for inline consts, too.
I have not yet figured out a good way to make `tcx.hir().body()` return an inline-const body, but that can be done as a follow-up
Do not equate `Const`'s ty in `super_combine_const`
Fixes#114456
In #125451 we started relating the `Const`'s tys outside of a probe so it was no longer simply an assertion to catch bugs.
This was done so that when we _do_ provide a wrongly typed const argument to an item if we wind up relating it with some other instantiation we'll have a `TypeError` we can bubble up and taint the resulting mir allowing const eval to skip evaluation.
In this PR I instead change `ConstArgHasType` to correctly handle checking the types of const inference variables. Previously if we had something like `impl<const N: u32> Trait for [(); N]`, when using the impl we would instantiate it with infer vars and then check that `?x: u32` is of type `u32` and succeed. Then later we would infer `?x` to some `Const` of type `usize`.
We now stall on `?x` in `ConstArgHasType` until it has a concrete value that we can determine the type of. This allows us to fail using the erroneous implementation of `Trait` which allows us to taint the mir.
Long term we intend to remove the `ty` field on `Const` so we would have no way of accessing the `ty` of a const inference variable anyway and would have to do this. I did not fully update `ConstArgHasType` to avoid using the `ty` field as it's not entirely possible right now- we would need to lookup `ConstArgHasType` candidates in the env.
---
As for _why_ I think we should do this, relating the types of const's is not necessary for soundness of the type system. Originally this check started off as a plain `==` in `super_relate_consts` and gradually has been growing in complexity as we support more complicated types. It was never actually required to ensure that const arguments are correctly typed for their parameters however.
The way we currently check that a const argument has the correct type is a little convoluted and confusing (and will hopefully be less weird as time goes on). Every const argument has an anon const with its return type set to type of the const parameter it is an argument to. When type checking the anon const regular type checking rules require that the expression is the same type as the return type. This effectively ensure that no matter what every const argument _always_ has the correct type.
An extra bit of complexity is that during `hir_ty_lowering` we do not represent everything as a `ConstKind::Unevaluated` corresponding to the anon const. For generic parameters i.e. `[(); N]` we simply represent them as `ConstKind::Param` as we do not want `ConstKind::Unevaluated` with generic substs on stable under min const generics. The anon const still gets type checked resulting in errors about type mismatches.
Eventually we intend to not create anon consts for all const arguments (for example for `ConstKind::Param`) and instead check that the argument type is correct via `ConstArgHasType` obligations (these effectively also act as a check that the anon consts have the correctly set return type).
What this all means is that the the only time we should ever have mismatched types when relating two `Const`s is if we have messed up our logic for ensuring that const arguments are of the correct type. Having this not be an assert is:
- Confusing as it may incorrectly lead people to believe this is an important check that is actually required
- Opens the possibility for bugs or behaviour reliant on this (unnecessary) check existing
---
This PR makes two tests go from pass->ICE (`generic_const_exprs/ice-125520-layout-mismatch-mulwithoverflow.rs` and `tests/crashes/121858.rs`). This is caused by the fact that we evaluate anon consts even if their where clauses do not hold and is a pre-existing issue and only affects `generic_const_exprs`. I am comfortable exposing the brokenness of `generic_const_exprs` more with this PR
This PR makes a test go from ICE->pass (`const-generics/issues/issue-105821.rs`). I have no idea why this PR affects that but I believe that ICE is an unrelated issue to do with the fact that under `generic_const_exprs`/`adt_const_params` we do not handle lifetimes in const parameter types correctly. This PR is likely just masking this bug.
Note: this PR doesn't re-introduce the assertion that the two consts' tys are equal. I'm not really sure how I feel about this but tbh it has caused more ICEs than its found lately so 🤷♀️
r? `@oli-obk` `@compiler-errors`
When a lazy logical operator (`&&` or `||`) occurs outside of an `if`
condition, it normally doesn't have any associated control-flow branch, so we
don't have an existing way to track whether it was true or false.
This patch adds special code to handle this case, by inserting extra MIR blocks
in a diamond shape after evaluating the RHS. This gives us a place to insert
the appropriate marker statements, which can then be given their own counters.
[ACP 362] genericize `ptr::from_raw_parts`
This implements https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/362
As such, it can partially undo https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124795 , letting `slice_from_raw_parts` just call `from_raw_parts` again without re-introducing the unnecessary cast to MIR.
By doing this it also removes a spurious cast from `str::from_raw_parts`. And I think it does a good job of showing the value of the ACP, since the only thing that needed new turbofishing because of this is inside `ptr::null(_mut)`, but only because `ptr::without_provenance(_mut)` doesn't support pointers to extern types, which it absolutely could (without even changing the implementation).
Always use the `Fn(T) -> R` format when printing closure traits instead of `Fn<(T,), Output = R>`.
Fix#67100:
```
error[E0277]: expected a `Fn()` closure, found `F`
--> file.rs:6:13
|
6 | call_fn(f)
| ------- ^ expected an `Fn()` closure, found `F`
| |
| required by a bound introduced by this call
|
= note: wrap the `F` in a closure with no arguments: `|| { /* code */ }`
note: required by a bound in `call_fn`
--> file.rs:1:15
|
1 | fn call_fn<F: Fn() -> ()>(f: &F) {
| ^^^^^^^^^^ required by this bound in `call_fn`
help: consider further restricting this bound
|
5 | fn call_any<F: std::any::Any + Fn()>(f: &F) {
| ++++++
```
Allow calling these functions without `unsafe` blocks in editions up
until 2021, but don't trigger the `unused_unsafe` lint for `unsafe`
blocks containing these functions.
Fixes#27970.
Fixes#90308.
CC #124866.
This commit refactors the `#[do_not_recommend]` support in the old
parser to also apply to projection errors and not only to selection
errors. This allows the attribute to be used more widely.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #124655 (Add `-Zfixed-x18`)
- #125693 (Format all source files in `tests/coverage/`)
- #125700 (coverage: Avoid overflow when the MC/DC condition limit is exceeded)
- #125705 (Reintroduce name resolution check for trying to access locals from an inline const)
- #125708 (tier 3 target policy: clarify the point about producing assembly)
- #125715 (remove unneeded extern crate in rmake test)
- #125719 (Extract coverage-specific code out of `compiletest::runtest`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Reintroduce name resolution check for trying to access locals from an inline const
fixes#125676
I removed this without replacement in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124650 without considering the consequences
coverage: Avoid overflow when the MC/DC condition limit is exceeded
Fix for the test failure seen in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124571#issuecomment-2099620869.
If we perform this subtraction first, it can sometimes overflow to -1 before the addition can bring its value back to 0.
That behaviour seems to be benign, but it nevertheless causes test failures in compiler configurations that check for overflow.
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
Format all source files in `tests/coverage/`
Currently we can't automatically enforce formatting on tests (see #125637), but we can at least keep things relatively tidy by occasionally running the formatter manually.
This was done by temporarily commenting out the `"/tests/"` exclusion in `rustfmt.toml`, and then running:
- `x fmt tests/coverage`
- `x test coverage --bless`
(This PR also includes a few cosmetic tweaks to some of the affected files, to convince rustfmt to format them in the way we want.)
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
Use `rmake` for `windows-` run-make tests
Convert some Makefile tests to recipes.
I renamed "issue-85441" to "windows-ws2_32" as I think it's slightly more descriptive. EDIT: `llvm-readobj` seems to work for reading DLL imports so I've used that instead of `objdump`.
cc #121876
Make lint: `lint_dropping_references` `lint_forgetting_copy_types` `lint_forgetting_references` give suggestion if possible.
This is a follow-up PR of #125433. When it's merged, I want change lint `dropping_copy_types` to use the same `Subdiagnostic` struct `UseLetUnderscoreIgnoreSuggestion` which is added in this PR.
Hi, Thank you(`@Urgau` ) again for your help in the previous PR. If your time permits, please also take a look at this one.
r? compiler
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
don't inhibit random field reordering on repr(packed(1))
`inhibit_struct_field_reordering_opt` being false means we exclude this type from random field shuffling. However, `packed(1)` types can still be shuffled! The logic was added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48528 since it's pointless to reorder fields in packed(1) types (there's no padding that could be saved) -- but that shouldn't inhibit `-Zrandomize-layout` (which did not exist at the time).
We could add an optimization elsewhere to not bother sorting the fields for `repr(packed)` types, but I don't think that's worth the effort.
This *does* change the behavior in that we may now reorder fields of `packed(1)` structs (e.g. if there are niches, we'll try to move them to the start/end, according to `NicheBias`). We were always allowed to do that but so far we didn't. Quoting the [reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/type-layout.html):
> On their own, align and packed do not provide guarantees about the order of fields in the layout of a struct or the layout of an enum variant, although they may be combined with representations (such as C) which do provide such guarantees.
Matthias Krüger