const-eval: disallow unwinding across functions that `!fn_can_unwind()`
Following https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/pull/1776#discussion_r633074343, so r? `@RalfJung`
This PR turns `unwind` in `StackPopCleanup::Goto` into a new enum `StackPopUnwind`, with a `NotAllowed` variant to indicate that unwinding is not allowed. This variant is chosen based on `rustc_middle::ty::layout::fn_can_unwind()` in `eval_fn_call()` when pushing the frame. A check is added in `unwind_to_block()` to report UB if unwinding happens across a `StackPopUnwind::NotAllowed` frame.
Tested with Miri `HEAD` with [minor changes](https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/compare/HEAD..9cf3c7f0d86325a586fbcbf2acdc9232b861f1d8) and the rust-lang/miri#1776 branch with [these changes](d866c1c52f..626638fbfe).
Post-monomorphization errors traces MVP
This PR works towards better diagnostics for the errors encountered in #85155 and similar.
We can encounter post-monomorphization errors (PMEs) when collecting mono items. The current diagnostics are confusing for these cases when they happen in a dependency (but are acceptable when they happen in the local crate).
These kinds of errors will be more likely now that `stdarch` uses const generics for its intrinsics' immediate arguments, and validates these const arguments with a mechanism that triggers such PMEs.
(Not to mention that the errors happen during codegen, so only when building code that actually uses these code paths. Check builds don't trigger them, neither does unused code)
So in this PR, we detect these kinds of errors during the mono item graph walk: if any error happens while collecting a node or its neighbors, we print a diagnostic about the current collection step, so that the user has at least some context of which erroneous code and dependency triggered the error.
The diagnostics for issue #85155 now have this note showing the source of the erroneous const argument:
```
note: the above error was encountered while instantiating `fn std::arch::x86_64::_mm_blend_ps::<51_i32>`
--> issue-85155.rs:11:24
|
11 | let _blended = _mm_blend_ps(a, b, 0x33);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Note that #85155 is a reduced version of a case happening in the wild, to indirect users of the `rustfft` crate, as seen in https://github.com/ejmahler/RustFFT/issues/74. The crate had a few of these out-of-range immediates. Here's how the diagnostics in this PR would have looked on one of its examples before it was fixed:
<details>
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
8 | assert!(IMM >= MIN && IMM <= MAX, "IMM value not in expected range");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the evaluated program panicked at 'IMM value not in expected range', ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
note: the above error was encountered while instantiating `fn _mm_blend_ps::<51_i32>`
--> /tmp/RustFFT/src/avx/avx_vector.rs:1314:23
|
1314 | let blended = _mm_blend_ps(rows[0], rows[2], 0x33);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: the above error was encountered while instantiating `fn _mm_permute_pd::<5_i32>`
--> /tmp/RustFFT/src/avx/avx_vector.rs:1859:9
|
1859 | _mm_permute_pd(self, 0x05)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: the above error was encountered while instantiating `fn _mm_permute_pd::<15_i32>`
--> /tmp/RustFFT/src/avx/avx_vector.rs:1863:32
|
1863 | (_mm_movedup_pd(self), _mm_permute_pd(self, 0x0F))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0080`.
error: could not compile `rustfft`
To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.
```
</details>
I've developed and discussed this with them, so maybe r? `@oli-obk` -- but feel free to redirect to someone else of course.
(I'm not sure we can say that this PR definitely closes issue 85155, as it's still unclear exactly which diagnostics and information would be interesting to report in such cases -- and we've discussed printing backtraces before. I have prototypes of some complete and therefore noisy backtraces I showed Oli, but we decided to not include them in this PR for now)
Emit a diagnostic when the monomorphized item collector
encounters errors during a step of the recursive item collection.
These post-monomorphization errors otherwise only show the
erroneous expression without a trace, making them very obscure
and hard to pinpoint whenever they happen in dependencies.
CTFE get_alloc_extra_mut: also provide ref to MemoryExtra
This would let me use mutable references in more places in Stacked Borrows, avoiding some `RefCell` overhead. :)
r? `@oli-obk`
CTFE core engine allocation & memory API improvemenets
This is a first step towards https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/841.
- make `Allocation` API offset-based (no more making up `Pointer`s just to access an `Allocation`)
- make `Memory` API higher-level (combine checking for access and getting access into one operation)
The Miri-side PR is at https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/pull/1804.
r? `@oli-obk`
- make Allocation API offset-based (no more Pointer)
- make Memory API higher-level (combine checking for access and getting access into one operation)
This adds a new lint to `rustc` that is used in rustdoc when a code
block is empty or cannot be parsed as valid Rust code.
Previously this was unconditionally a warning. As such some
documentation comments were (unknowingly) abusing this to pass despite
the `-Dwarnings` used when compiling `rustc`, this should not be the
case anymore.
Remove CrateNum parameter for queries that only work on local crate
The pervasive `CrateNum` parameter is a remnant of the multi-crate rustc idea.
Using `()` as query key in those cases avoids having to worry about the validity of the query key.
CTFE validation: handle pointers in str
I also finally learned how I can match *some* NOTEs in a ui test without matching all of them, and applied that to some const tests in the 2nd commit where I added NOTE because I did not know what I was doing. I can separate this into its own PR if you prefer.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/83182
r? `@oli-obk`
