This commit adds a new nonterminal `expr_2021` in macro patterns, and
`expr_fragment_specifier_2024` feature flag. For now, `expr` and
`expr_2021` are treated the same, but in future PRs we will update
`expr` to match to new grammar.
Co-authored-by: Vincezo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
Change `SIGPIPE` ui from `#[unix_sigpipe = "..."]` to `-Zon-broken-pipe=...`
In the stabilization [attempt](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120832) of `#[unix_sigpipe = "sig_dfl"]`, a concern was [raised ](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120832#issuecomment-2007394609) related to using a language attribute for the feature: Long term, we want `fn lang_start()` to be definable by any crate, not just libstd. Having a special language attribute in that case becomes awkward.
So as a first step towards the next stabilization attempt, this PR changes the `#[unix_sigpipe = "..."]` attribute to a compiler flag `-Zon-broken-pipe=...` to remove that concern, since now the language is not "contaminated" by this feature.
Another point was [also raised](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120832#issuecomment-1987023484), namely that the ui should not leak **how** it does things, but rather what the **end effect** is. The new flag uses the proposed naming. This is of course something that can be iterated on further before stabilization.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97889
In the stabilization attempt of `#[unix_sigpipe = "sig_dfl"]`, a concern
was raised related to using a language attribute for the feature: Long
term, we want `fn lang_start()` to be definable by any crate, not just
libstd. Having a special language attribute in that case becomes
awkward.
So as a first step towards towards the next stabilization attempt, this
PR changes the `#[unix_sigpipe = "..."]` attribute to a compiler flag
`-Zon-broken-pipe=...` to remove that concern, since now the language
is not "contaminated" by this feature.
Another point was also raised, namely that the ui should not leak
**how** it does things, but rather what the **end effect** is. The new
flag uses the proposed naming. This is of course something that can be
iterated on further before stabilization.
`-Z debug-macros` is "stabilized" by enabling it by default and removing.
`-Z collapse-macro-debuginfo` is stabilized as `-C collapse-macro-debuginfo`.
It now supports all typical boolean values (`parse_opt_bool`) in addition to just yes/no.
Default value of `collapse_debuginfo` was changed from `false` to `external` (i.e. collapsed if external, not collapsed if local).
`#[collapse_debuginfo]` attribute without a value is no longer supported to avoid guessing the default.
Do `check_coroutine_obligations` once per typeck root
We only need to do `check_coroutine_obligations` once per typeck root, especially since the new solver can't really (easily) associate which obligations correspond to which coroutines.
This requires us to move the checks for sized coroutine fields into `mir_coroutine_witnesses`, but that's fine imo.
r? lcnr
panic_str only exists for the migration to 2021 panic macros
The only caller is `expect_failed`, which is already a cold inline(never) function, so inlining into that function should be fine. (And indeed `panic_str` was `#[inline]` anyway.)
The existence of panic_str risks someone calling it when they should call `panic` instead, and I can't see a reason why this footgun should exist.
I also extended the comment in `panic` to explain why it needs a `'static` string -- I know I've wondered about this in the past and it took me quite a while to understand.
Add simple async drop glue generation
This is a prototype of the async drop glue generation for some simple types. Async drop glue is intended to behave very similar to the regular drop glue except for being asynchronous. Currently it does not execute synchronous drops but only calls user implementations of `AsyncDrop::async_drop` associative function and awaits the returned future. It is not complete as it only recurses into arrays, slices, tuples, and structs and does not have same sensible restrictions as the old `Drop` trait implementation like having the same bounds as the type definition, while code assumes their existence (requires a future work).
This current design uses a workaround as it does not create any custom async destructor state machine types for ADTs, but instead uses types defined in the std library called future combinators (deferred_async_drop, chain, ready_unit).
Also I recommend reading my [explainer](https://zetanumbers.github.io/book/async-drop-design.html).
This is a part of the [MCP: Low level components for async drop](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/727) work.
Feature completeness:
- [x] `AsyncDrop` trait
- [ ] `async_drop_in_place_raw`/async drop glue generation support for
- [x] Trivially destructible types (integers, bools, floats, string slices, pointers, references, etc.)
- [x] Arrays and slices (array pointer is unsized into slice pointer)
- [x] ADTs (enums, structs, unions)
- [x] tuple-like types (tuples, closures)
- [ ] Dynamic types (`dyn Trait`, see explainer's [proposed design](https://github.com/zetanumbers/posts/blob/main/async-drop-design.md#async-drop-glue-for-dyn-trait))
- [ ] coroutines (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123948)
- [x] Async drop glue includes sync drop glue code
- [x] Cleanup branch generation for `async_drop_in_place_raw`
- [ ] Union rejects non-trivially async destructible fields
- [ ] `AsyncDrop` implementation requires same bounds as type definition
- [ ] Skip trivially destructible fields (optimization)
- [ ] New [`TyKind::AdtAsyncDestructor`](https://github.com/zetanumbers/posts/blob/main/async-drop-design.md#adt-async-destructor-types) and get rid of combinators
- [ ] [Synchronously undroppable types](https://github.com/zetanumbers/posts/blob/main/async-drop-design.md#exclusively-async-drop)
- [ ] Automatic async drop at the end of the scope in async context
Currently `SourceMap` is constructed slightly later than
`SessionGlobals`, and inserted. This commit changes things so they are
done at the same time.
Benefits:
- `SessionGlobals::source_map` changes from
`Lock<Option<Lrc<SourceMap>>>` to `Option<Lrc<SourceMap>>`. It's still
optional, but mutability isn't required because it's initialized at
construction.
- `set_source_map` is removed, simplifying `run_compiler`, which is
good because that's a critical function and it's nice to make it
simpler.
This requires moving things around a bit, so the necessary inputs are
available when `SessionGlobals` is created, in particular the `loader`
and `hash_kind`, which are no longer computed by `build_session`. These
inputs are captured by the new `SourceMapInputs` type, which is threaded
through various places.
Add add/sub methods that only panic with debug assertions to rustc
This mitigates the perf impact of enabling overflow checks on rustc. The change to use overflow checks will be done in a later PR.
For rust-lang/compiler-team#724, based on data gathered in #119440.
typeck: fix `?` suggestion span
Noticed in <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112043#issuecomment-2043565292>, if the
```
use the `?` operator to extract the `Result<(), std::fmt::Error>` value, propagating a `Result::Err` value to the caller
```
suggestion is applied to a macro that comes from a non-local crate (e.g. the stdlib), the suggestion span can become non-local, which will cause newer rustfix versions to fail.
This PR tries to remedy the problem by recursively probing ancestors of the expression span, trying to identify the most ancestor span that is (1) still local, and (2) still shares the same syntax context as the expression.
This is the same strategy used in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112043.
The test unfortunately cannot `//@ run-rustfix` because there are two conflicting MaybeIncorrect suggestions that when collectively applied, cause the fixed source file to become non-compilable.
Also avoid running `//@ run-rustfix` for `tests/ui/typeck/issue-112007-leaked-writeln-macro-internals.rs` because that also contains conflicting suggestions.
cc `@ehuss` who noticed this. This question mark span fix + not running rustfix on the tests containing conflicting MaybeIncorrect suggestions should hopefully unblock rustfix from updating.
Match ergonomics: implement "`&`pat everywhere"
Implements the eat-two-layers (feature gate `and_pat_everywhere`, all editions) ~and the eat-one-layer (feature gate `and_eat_one_layer_2024`, edition 2024 only, takes priority on that edition when both feature gates are active)~ (EDIT: will be done in later PR) semantics.
cc #123076
r? ``@Nadrieril``
``@rustbot`` label A-patterns A-edition-2024
rename ptr::from_exposed_addr -> ptr::with_exposed_provenance
As discussed on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/To.20expose.20or.20not.20to.20expose/near/427757066).
The old name, `from_exposed_addr`, makes little sense as it's not the address that is exposed, it's the provenance. (`ptr.expose_addr()` stays unchanged as we haven't found a better option yet. The intended interpretation is "expose the provenance and return the address".)
The new name nicely matches `ptr::without_provenance`.
Add `Ord::cmp` for primitives as a `BinOp` in MIR
Update: most of this OP was written months ago. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118310#issuecomment-2016940014 below for where we got to recently that made it ready for review.
---
There are dozens of reasonable ways to implement `Ord::cmp` for integers using comparison, bit-ops, and branches. Those differences are irrelevant at the rust level, however, so we can make things better by adding `BinOp::Cmp` at the MIR level:
1. Exactly how to implement it is left up to the backends, so LLVM can use whatever pattern its optimizer best recognizes and cranelift can use whichever pattern codegens the fastest.
2. By not inlining those details for every use of `cmp`, we drastically reduce the amount of MIR generated for `derive`d `PartialOrd`, while also making it more amenable to MIR-level optimizations.
Having extremely careful `if` ordering to μoptimize resource usage on broadwell (#63767) is great, but it really feels to me like libcore is the wrong place to put that logic. Similarly, using subtraction [tricks](https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#CopyIntegerSign) (#105840) is arguably even nicer, but depends on the optimizer understanding it (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/73417) to be practical. Or maybe [bitor is better than add](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/representing-in-ir/67369/2?u=scottmcm)? But maybe only on a future version that [has `or disjoint` support](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-add-or-disjoint-flag/75036?u=scottmcm)? And just because one of those forms happens to be good for LLVM, there's no guarantee that it'd be the same form that GCC or Cranelift would rather see -- especially given their very different optimizers. Not to mention that if LLVM gets a spaceship intrinsic -- [which it should](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Suboptimal.20inlining.20in.20std.20function.20.60binary_search.60/near/404250586) -- we'll need at least a rustc intrinsic to be able to call it.
As for simplifying it in Rust, we now regularly inline `{integer}::partial_cmp`, but it's quite a large amount of IR. The best way to see that is with 8811efa88b (diff-d134c32d028fbe2bf835fef2df9aca9d13332dd82284ff21ee7ebf717bfa4765R113) -- I added a new pre-codegen MIR test for a simple 3-tuple struct, and this PR change it from 36 locals and 26 basic blocks down to 24 locals and 8 basic blocks. Even better, as soon as the construct-`Some`-then-match-it-in-same-BB noise is cleaned up, this'll expose the `Cmp == 0` branches clearly in MIR, so that an InstCombine (#105808) can simplify that to just a `BinOp::Eq` and thus fix some of our generated code perf issues. (Tracking that through today's `if a < b { Less } else if a == b { Equal } else { Greater }` would be *much* harder.)
---
r? `@ghost`
But first I should check that perf is ok with this
~~...and my true nemesis, tidy.~~
The original proposal allows reference patterns
with "compatible" mutability, however it's not clear
what that means so for now we require an exact match.
I don't know the type system code well, so if something
seems to not make sense it's probably because I made a
mistake
Nicholas Nethercote