Add `TypeId` methods `variants` `fields` `field` for `type_info`
Tracking issue rust-lang/rust#146922
- Adds `fn TypeId::variants` returns the number of variants, for struct and union and primitive types, it's always 1.
- Adds `fn TypeId::fields` returns the number of fields.
- Adds `fn TypeId::field` returns a field representing type `FieldId`.
- Adds a new type `FieldId`, which is a wrapper of `FieldRepresentingType`'s `TypeId`.
For methods `{fields,field}`, if indexing out of bounds, a compile-time error will be raised.
Regarding the removal of `Type` items, this will be done in a later PR in one go.
r? @oli-obk
rustc_on_unimplemented: introduce format specifiers
...as printing options for the annotated item.
See also the test and dev guide prose. This only affects rustc_on_unimplemented, not (yet) the other diagnostic attributes. I plan to do that in some later PR.
```rust
#![feature(rustc_attrs)]
#[rustc_on_unimplemented(
message = "normal: {This}, path: {This:path}, resolved: {This:resolved}"
)]
pub trait Trait<'lifetime, const CONST_GENERIC: usize, A, B> where A: Send {}
```
will do:
```
normal: Trait, path: Trait<'lifetime, CONST_GENERIC, A, B>, resolved: Trait<'_, 6, u8, _>
```
Revert tearing changes to `dbg!`
Since the primary change to `dbg!` in rust-lang/rust#149869, we've been chasing a few regressions:
* rust-lang/rust#153850, fixed by rust-lang/rust#154074
* rust-lang/rust#154988, fixed by rust-lang/rust#154994
* rust-lang/rust#155902, proposed fix in rust-lang/rust#155915
We already reverted this once, on beta only to prevent these regressions from shipping in 1.95.
In that most recent PR, we decided that it would be better to revert `dbg!` to its original state everywhere (`main` and 1.96-`beta`), and then we can consider it from scratch later. So here I've reverted the change and its fixes, but kept the regression tests, including the pending one.
cc @joboet @dianne @rust-lang/libs
@rustbot label beta-nominated
Adds an unstable `extern "Swift"` ABI behind the `abi_swift` feature
gate, mapping to LLVM's `swiftcc` calling convention. Cranelift and
GCC backends fall back to the platform default since they have no
equivalent.
Add `Drop::pin_drop` for pinned drops
This PR is part of the `pin_ergonomics` experiment (the tracking issue is rust-lang/rust#130494). It allows implementing `Drop` with a pinned `self` receiver, which is required for safe pin-projection.
Implementations:
- [x] At least and at most one of `drop` and `pin_drop` should be implemented.
- [x] No direct call of `drop` or `pin_drop`. They should only be called by the drop glue.
- [x] `pin_drop` must and must only be used with types that support pin-projection (i.e. types with `#[pin_v2]`).
- [ ] Allows writing `fn drop(&pin mut self)` and desugars to `fn pin_drop(&pin mut self)`. (Will be in the next PRs)
Lint unused pub items in binary crates
~~This PR adds a new unstable flag -Ztreat-pub-as-pub-crate as [@Kobzol](https://github.com/Kobzol) suggested.~~
~~When compiling binary crates with this flag, the seed worklist will only contain the entry fn and won't contain other reachable items. Then we can do the dead code analysis for pub items just like they are pub(crate).~~
Related zulip thread [#general > pub/pub(crate) within a binary is a footgun](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/122651-general/topic/pub.2Fpub.28crate.29.20within.20a.20binary.20is.20a.20footgun/with/558931034).
---
Updated:
Adds a new lint `unused_pub_items_in_binary` (crate-level, default allow for now) instead of the previous unstable flag to lint unused `pub` items for binary crates.
See more details of implementation in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/149509#issuecomment-4102337689.
This lint is allowed by default, but I believe this has been better than the unstable flag. Making it warn-by-default will lead to a lot of noise for this PR (like bless many tests). So I'd like to make it warn-by-default in a separate PR in the future.
Add `const_param_ty_unchecked` gate
Add `const_param_ty_unchecked` internal feature gate to skip `ConstParamTy_` trait enforcement on type. Provides an escape hatch for writing tests and examples that use const generics without needing to ensure all fields implement `ConstParamTy_`.
r? BoxyUwU
Make retags an implicit part of typed copies
Ever since Stacked Borrows was first implemented in Miri, that was done with `Retag` statements: given a place (usually a local variable), those statements find all references stored inside the place and refresh their tags to ensure the aliasing requirements are upheld. However, this is a somewhat unsatisfying approach for multiple reasons:
- It leaves open the [question](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/371) of where to even put `Retag` statements. Over time, the AddRetag pass settled on one possible answer to this, but it wasn't very canonical.
- For assignments of the form `*ptr = expr`, if the assignment involves copying a reference, we probably want to do a retag -- but if we do a `Retag(*ptr)` as the next instruction, it can be non-trivial to argue that this even retags the right value, so we refrained from doing retags in that case. This has [come up](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160913#issuecomment-3341908717) as a potential issue for Rust making better use of LLVM "captures" annotations. (That said, there might be [other ways](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/593#issuecomment-4328112031) to obtain this desired optimization.)
- Normal compilation avoids generating retags, but we still generate LLVM IR with `noalias`. What does that even mean? How do MIR optimization passes interact with retags? These are questions we have to figure out to make better use of aliasing information, but currently we can't even really ask such questions.
I think we should resolve all that by making retags part of what happens during a typed copy (a concept and interpreter infrastructure that did not exist yet when retags were initially introduced). Under this proposal, when executing a MIR assignment statement, what conceptually happens is as follows:
- We evaluate the LHS to a place.
- We evaluate the RHS to a value. This does a typed load from memory if needed, raising UB if memory does not contain a valid representation of the assignment's type.
- We walk that value, identify all references inside of it, and retag them. If this happens as part of passing a function argument, this is a protecting retag.
- We store (a representation of) the value into the place.
However, this semantics doesn't fully work: there's a mandatory MIR pass that turns expressions like `&mut ***ptr` into intermediate deref's. Those must *not* do any retags. So far this happened because the AddRetag pass did not add retags for assignments to deref temporaries, but that information is not recorded in cross-crate MIR. Therefore I instead added a field to `Rvalue::Use` to indicate whether this value should be retagged or not. A non-retagging copy seems like a sufficiently canonical primitive that we should be able to express it. Dealing with the fallout from that is a large chunk of the overall diff. (I also considered adding this field to `StatementKind::Assign` instead, but decided against that as we only actually need it for `Rvalue::Use`. I am not sure if this was the right call...)
This neatly answers the question of when retags should occur, and handles cases like `*ptr = expr`. It avoids traversing values twice in Miri. It makes codegen's use of `noalias` sound wrt the actual MIR that it is working on. It also gives us a target semantics to evaluate MIR opts against. However, I did not carefully check all MIR opts -- in particular, GVN needs a thorough look under the new semantics; it currently can turn alias-correct code into alias-incorrect code. (But this PR doesn't make things any worse for normal compilation where the retag indicator is anyway ignored.)
Another side-effect of this PR is that `-Zmiri-disable-validation` now also disables alias checking. It'd be nicer to keep them orthogonal but I find this an acceptable price to pay.
- [rustc benchmark results](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/154341#issuecomment-4125313290)
- [miri benchmark results](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/154341#issuecomment-4129840926)
Add extra symbol check for `.to_owned()`
Follow up of rust-lang/rust#154646
Previously when adding a suggestion for using `Cow::into_owned()` instead of `ToOwned::to_owned()`, the compiler would just convert the methods `Span` into a `String` and do checks on that `String`. This PR adds an extra guard to that suggestion by checking if the method is `sym::to_owned_method`.
r? @davidtwco since you added the review to the previous PR
Previously when adding a suggestion for using `Cow::into_owned()`
instead of `ToOwned::to_owned()`, the compiler would just convert the
methods `Span` into a `String` and do checks on that `String`. This PR
adds an extra guard to that suggestion by checking if the method is
`sym::to_owned_method`.
Specifically:
- `HashStable` -> `StableHash` (trait)
- `HashStable` -> `StableHash` (derive)
- `HashStable_NoContext` -> `StableHash_NoContext` (derive)
Note: there are some names in `compiler/rustc_macros/src/hash_stable.rs`
that are still to be renamed, e.g. `HashStableMode`.
Part of MCP 983.
Matthias Krüger