Avoid using env::temp when linking a binary
This keeps all build artefacts (even temporary ones) within the build directory.
Fixesrust-lang/rust#139963
Remap both absolute and relative paths when building `rustc` and `std`
Turns out [#150110](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/150110) didn't work as expected, because when the standard library sources are present, we [helpfully un-remap the paths](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/e951f470d76febcc6f0a5b409c509eb77450a336/compiler/rustc_metadata/src/rmeta/decoder.rs#L1656-L1702) to the local directory of the user, including when we are building the compiler and standard library it-self (duh!), and since those paths are absolute (not relative), our purely relative remapping didn't pick them up.
This behavior wasn't a issue before because the un-remap logic immediately tries to remap them again, and since we had the absolute remapping we would just remap them to the the same thing.
To fix that issue I've adjusted our remapping to remap both the absolute and relative paths when building `rustc` and `std`, as well as added a run-make to make sure we don't regress it again (with a new `needs-std-remap-debuginfo` directive).
r? `@jieyouxu`
Tidying up tests/ui/issues 15 tests [6/N]
> [!NOTE]
> Intermediate commits are intended to help review, but will be squashed add comment commit prior to merge.
part of rust-lang/rust#133895
r? Kivooeo
Fix ICE in normalization during closure capture analysis (#149746)
This fixes an internal compiler error that occurred when normalizing associated types during closure capture analysis.
The Fix: Modified rustc_middle/src/ty/normalize_erasing_regions.rs to gracefully handle projection normalization failures instead of panicking when analyzing closure captures.
Regression Test: Added tests/ui/associated-types/normalization-ice-issue-149746.rs, a reproduction case involving complex associated type projections (<() as Owner>::Ty<T>) that previously crashed the compiler. Verified it now emits a standard type error (E0277).
Fixesrust-lang/rust#149746
MGCA: Support struct expressions without intermediary anon consts
r? oli-obk
tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#132980Fixesrust-lang/rust#127972Fixesrust-lang/rust#137888Fixesrust-lang/rust#140275
due to delaying a bug instead of ICEing in HIR ty lowering.
### High level goal
Under `feature(min_generic_const_args)` this PR adds another kind of const argument. A struct/variant construction const arg kind. We represent the values of the fields as themselves being const arguments which allows for uses of generic parameters subject to the existing restrictions present in `min_generic_const_args`:
```rust
fn foo<const N: Option<u32>>() {}
trait Trait {
#[type_const]
const ASSOC: usize;
}
fn bar<T: Trait, const N: u32>() {
// the initializer of `_0` is a `N` which is a legal const argument
// so this is ok.
foo::<{ Some::<u32> { 0: N } }>();
// this is allowed as mgca supports uses of assoc consts in the
// type system. ie `<T as Trait>::ASSOC` is a legal const argument
foo::<{ Some::<u32> { 0: <T as Trait>::ASSOC } }>();
// this on the other hand is not allowed as `N + 1` is not a legal
// const argument
foo::<{ Some::<u32> { 0: N + 1 } }>();
}
```
This PR does not support uses of const ctors, e.g. `None`. And also does not support tuple constructors, e.g. `Some(N)`. I believe that it would not be difficult to add support for such functionality after this PR lands so have left it out deliberately.
We currently require that all generic parameters on the type being constructed be explicitly specified. I haven't really looked into why that is but it doesn't seem desirable to me as it should be legal to write `Some { ... }` in a const argument inside of a body and have that desugar to `Some::<_> { ... }`. Regardless this can definitely be a follow-up PR and I assume this is some underlying consistency with the way that elided args are handled with type paths elsewhere.
This PRs implementation of supporting struct expressions is somewhat incomplete. We don't handle `Foo { ..expr }` at all and aren't handling privacy/stability. The printing of `ConstArgKind::Struct` HIR nodes doesn't really exist either :')
I've tried to keep the implementation here somewhat deliberately incomplete as I think a number of these issues are actually quite small and self contained after this PR lands and I'm hoping it could be a good set of issues to mentor newer contributors on 🤔 I just wanted the "bare minimum" required to actually demonstrate that the previous changes are "necessary".
### `ValTree` now recurse through `ty::Const`
In order to actually represent struct/variant construction in `ty::Const` without going through an anon const we would need to introduce some new `ConstKind` variant. Let's say some hypothetical `ConstKind::ADT(Ty<'tcx>, List<Const<'tcx>>)`.
This variant would represent things the same way that `ValTree` does with the first element representing the `VariantIdx` of the enum (if its an enum), and then followed by a list of field values in definition order.
This *could* work but there are a few reasons why it's suboptimal.
First it would mean we have a second kind of `Const` that can be normalized. Right now we only have `ConstKind::Unevaluated` which possibly needs normalization. Similarly with `TyKind` we *only* have `TyKind::Alias`. If we introduced `ConstKind::ADT` it would need to be normalized to a `ConstKind::Value` eventually. This feels to me like it has the potential to cause bugs in the long run where only `ConstKind::Unevaluated` is handled by some code paths.
Secondly it would make type equality/inference be kind of... weird... It's desirable for `Some { 0: ?x } eq Some { 0: 1_u32 }` to result in `?x=1_u32`. I can't see a way for this to work with this `ConstKind::ADT` design under the current architecture for how we represent types/consts and generally do equality operations.
We would need to wholly special case these two variants in type equality and have a custom recursive walker separate from the existing architecture for doing type equality. It would also be somewhat unique in that it's a non-rigid `ty::Const` (it can be normalized more later on in type inference) while also having somewhat "structural" equality behaviour.
Lastly, it's worth noting that its not *actually* `ConstKind::ADT` that we want. It's desirable to extend this setup to also support tuples and arrays, or even references if we wind up supporting those in const generics. Therefore this isn't really `ConstKind::ADT` but a more general `ConstKind::ShallowValue` or something to that effect. It represents at least one "layer" of a types value :')
Instead of doing this implementation choice we instead change `ValTree::Branch`:
```rust
enum ValTree<'tcx> {
Leaf(ScalarInt),
// Before this PR:
Branch(Box<[ValTree<'tcx>]>),
// After this PR
Branch(Box<[Const<'tcx>]>),
}
```
The representation for so called "shallow values" is now the same as the representation for the *entire* full value. The desired inference/type equality behaviour just falls right out of this. We also don't wind up with these shallow values actually being non-rigid. And `ValTree` *already* supports references/tuples/arrays so we can handle those just fine.
I think in the future it might be worth considering inlining `ValTree` into `ty::ConstKind`. E.g:
```rust
enum ConstKind {
Scalar(Ty<'tcx>, ScalarInt),
ShallowValue(Ty<'tcx>, List<Const<'tcx>>),
Unevaluated(UnevaluatedConst<'tcx>),
...
}
```
This would imply that the usage of `ValTree`s in patterns would now be using `ty::Const` but they already kind of are anyway and I think that's probably okay in the long run. It also would mean that the set of things we *could* represent in const patterns is greater which may be desirable in the long run for supporting things such as const patterns of const generic parameters.
Regardless, this PR doesn't actually inline `ValTree` into `ty::ConstKind`, it only changes `Branch` to recurse through `Const`. This change could be split out of this PR if desired.
I'm not sure if there'll be a perf impact from this change. It's somewhat plausible as now all const pattern values that have nesting will be interning a lot more `Ty`s. We shall see :>
### Forbidding generic parameters under mgca
Under mgca we now allow all const arguments to resolve paths to generic parameters. We then *later* actually validate that the const arg should be allowed to access generic parameters if it did wind up resolving to any.
This winds up just being a lot simpler to implement than trying to make name resolution "keep track" of whether we're inside of a non-anon-const const arg and then encounter a `const { ... }` indicating we should now stop allowing resolving to generic parameters.
It's also somewhat in line with what we'll need for a `feature(generic_const_args)` where we'll want to decide whether an anon const should have any generic parameters based off syntactically whether any generic parameters were used. Though that design is entirely hypothetical at this point :)
### Followup Work
- Make HIR ty lowering check whether lowering generic parameters is supported and if not lower to an error type/const. Should make the code cleaner, fix some other bugs, and maybe(?) recover perf since we'll be accessing less queries which I think is part of the perf regression of this PR
- Make the ValTree setup less scuffed. We should find a new name for `ConstKind::Value` and the `Val` part of `ValTree` and `ty::Value` as they no longer correspond to a fully normalized structure. It may also be worth looking into inlining `ValTreeKind` into `ConstKind` or atleast into `ty::Value` or sth 🤔
- Support tuple constructors and const constructors not just struct expressions.
- Reduce code duplication between HIR ty lowering's handling of struct expressions, and HIR typeck's handling of struct expressions
- Try fix perf https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/149114#issuecomment-3668038853. Maybe this will clear up once we clean up `ValTree` a bit and stop doing double interning and whatnot
add comment to closure-move-use-after-move-diagnostic.rs
add comment to missing-operator-after-float.rs
add comment to closure-array-break-length.rs
add comment to box-lifetime-argument-not-allowed.rs
add comment to const-return-outside-fn.rs
add comment to drop-conflicting-impls.rs
add comment to unbalanced-doublequote-2.rs
add comment to borrow-immutable-deref-box.rs
add comment to for-in-const-eval.rs
add comment to borrowck-annotated-static-lifetime.rs
cleaned up cast-rfc0401.rs
add comment to nll-anon-to-static.rs
add comment to cast-to-dyn-any.rs
add comment to missing-associated-items.rs
add comment to enum-discriminant-missing-variant.rs
Support syntax for one-line trait reuse
This PR adds support for reusing the whole trait with a one-line reuse syntax and is part of the delegation feature rust-lang/rust#118212:
```rust
trait T {
fn foo(&self);
}
struct S;
impl T for S { ... }
struct Wrapper(S);
reuse impl T for Wrapper { self.0 }
```
The core idea is that we already have support for glob reuse, so in this scenario we want to transform one-line reuse into a trait impl block with a glob reuse in the following way:
```rust
//Before
reuse impl T for Wrapper { self.0 }
//After
impl T for Wrapper {
reuse T::* { self.0 }
}
```
It seems like this task can be solved during parsing stage, when we encountered a one-line trait reuse, we can expand into this impl block right away, and the code which was already written to expand glob delegations will take care about the rest. We will copy trait path into glob reuse path.
The implementation of the transformation reuses already existing methods for `impl` parsing, however, we do not parse inner `impl` items, instead we parse "inner items" as delegation body. Thus, we do not have to deal with generics, consts, unsafe and other `impl` related features.
Other syntax possibility is trying to shorten one-line reuse by replacing `impl` keyword with `reuse` keyword:
```rust
reuse T for Wrapper { self.0 }
```
In this case implementation may become more complicated, and the syntax more confusing, as keywords such as `const` or `unsafe` will precede `reuse`, and there are also generics:
```rust
unsafe reuse<T1, T2> T for Wrapper { self.0 }
```
In the first (currently implemented) version reuse is placed in the beginning of the item, and it is clear that we will reuse trait implementation, while in the second, shorter version, the `reuse` keyword may be lost in generics and keywords that may precede `impl`.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
remove llvm_enzyme and enzyme fallbacks from most places
Using dlopen to get symbols has the nice benefit that rustc itself doesn't depend on libenzyme symbols anymore. We can therefore delete most fallback implementations in the backend (independently of whether we enable enzyme or not). When trying to use autodiff on nightly, we will now fail with a nice error if and only if we fail to load libEnzyme-21.so in our backend.
Verified:
Build as nightly, without Enzyme
Build as nightly, with Enzyme
Build as stable (without Enzyme)
With this PR we will now run `tests/ui/autodiff` on nightly, the tests are passing.
r? `@kobzol`
Don't lint on interior mutable `const` item coming from derefs
This PR fixes the `const_item_interior_mutations` lint so we don't lint on interior mutable `const` item coming from derefs.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/150157
Detail expectation on non-`()` block tail in `if` then condition with no `else`
When encountering an `if` expression with no `else` where the then block has a tail expression, we emit an E0308 type error. We now explain why `()` was expected.
Partially address rust-lang/rust#144911.
fix ICE when {{root}} appears in import suggestions
Fixesrust-lang/rust#150103
When wrong nested imports like `use A::{::Fish}` were used, the internal {{root}} would appear in diagnostic suggestions, causing an ICE in `join_path_idents` which asserted that **{{root}} should only appear at the start of a path**.
r? ``@matthiaskrgr``
When encountering an `if` expression with no `else` where the then
block has a tail expression, we emit an E0308 type error. We now explain
why `()` was expected.
Port `#[cfi_encoding]` to attribute parser
The error message is kind of saying the same thing twice, would like input on which .expect function I should use instead to not have it be double, otherwise this passes all tests locally where this attribute is used
r? `@JonathanBrouwer`
crash test readme: point to rustc-dev-guide
There is information that is duplicated here and in rustc-dev-guide, and the latter is more comprehensive, so point there.
Replace Rvalue::NullaryOp by a variant in mir::Operand.
Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/148151
This PR fully removes the MIR `Rvalue::NullaryOp`. After rust-lang/rust#148151, it was only useful for runtime checks like `ub_checks`, `contract_checks` and `overflow_checks`.
These are "runtime" checks, boolean constants that may only be `true` in codegen. It depends on a rustc flag passed to codegen, so we need to represent those flags cross-crate.
This PR replaces those runtime checks by special variants in MIR `ConstValue`. This allows code that expects constants to manipulate those as such, even if we may not always be able to evaluate them to actual scalars.
Don't strip shebang in expr-ctxt `include!(…)`
No longer strip shebang interpreter directives in files that were `include`d in expression (statement) contexts.
Better closure requirement propagation.
Fixesrust-lang/rust#148289Fixesrust-lang/rust#104477
Should unblock rust-lang/rust#148187
When propagating closure requirements we:
- no longer try to find a post dominiting region for the list of non-local lower bounds of `longer_fr`.
- we filter the list of `longer_fr-: shorter_fr+` to only these constraints between external regions which are required regardless. If no such constraint exists, we fall back to propagating all of them.
See the [FCP](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/148329#issuecomment-3581019253) for more information.
r? `@lcnr`
maradini77