```
error: `S2<'_>` is forbidden as the type of a const generic parameter
--> $DIR/lifetime-in-const-param.rs:5:23
|
LL | struct S<'a, const N: S2>(&'a ());
| ^^
|
= note: the only supported types are integers, `bool` and `char`
help: add `#![feature(adt_const_params)]` to the crate attributes to enable more complex and user defined types
|
LL + #![feature(adt_const_params)]
|
```
Fix#55941.
A bit of an inelegant fix but given that the error is created only
after call to `const_eval_poly()` and that the calling function
cannot propagate the error anywhere else, the error has to be
explicitly handled inside `mono_item.rs`.
Do not eat nested expressions' results in `MayContainYieldPoint` format args visitor
#121563 unintentionally changed the `MayContainYieldPoint` format args visitor behavior, now missing yield points in nested expressions, as seen in #122674.
The walk can find a yield point in an expression but it was ignored.
r? ``@petrochenkov`` as the reviewer of #121563
cc ``@Jarcho`` as the author
Fixes#122674.
We're in the 1.77 release week. #121563 will land on 1.78 but beta is still 1.77.9: this PR will likely need to be backported soon after beta is cut.
Update the minimum external LLVM to 17
With this change, we'll have stable support for LLVM 17 and 18.
For reference, the previous increase to LLVM 16 was #117947.
add_retag: ensure box-to-raw-ptr casts are preserved for Miri
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122233 I added `retag_box_to_raw` not realizing that we can already do `addr_of_mut!(*bx)` to turn a box into a raw pointer without an intermediate reference. We just need to ensure this information is preserved past the ElaborateBoxDerefs pass.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Remove fixme about LLVM basic block naming
~This may be a small perf win.~
Originally, this PR implemented the fixme, but it didn't have any measurable perf improvement.
r? ``@ghost``
simplify_cfg: rename some passes so that they make more sense
I was extremely confused by `SimplifyCfg::ElaborateDrops`, since it runs way later than drop elaboration. It is used e.g. in `mir-opt/retag.rs` even though that pass doesn't care about drop elaboration at all.
"Early opt" is also very confusing since that makes it sounds like it runs early during optimizations, i.e. on runtime MIR, but actually it runs way before that.
So I decided to rename
- early-opt -> post-analysis
- elaborate-drops -> pre-optimizations
I am open to other suggestions.
Detect when move of !Copy value occurs within loop and should likely not be cloned
When encountering a move error on a value within a loop of any kind,
identify if the moved value belongs to a call expression that should not
be cloned and avoid the semantically incorrect suggestion. Also try to
suggest moving the call expression outside of the loop instead.
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `vec`
--> $DIR/recreating-value-in-loop-condition.rs:6:33
|
LL | let vec = vec!["one", "two", "three"];
| --- move occurs because `vec` has type `Vec<&str>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
LL | while let Some(item) = iter(vec).next() {
| ----------------------------^^^--------
| | |
| | value moved here, in previous iteration of loop
| inside of this loop
|
note: consider changing this parameter type in function `iter` to borrow instead if owning the value isn't necessary
--> $DIR/recreating-value-in-loop-condition.rs:1:17
|
LL | fn iter<T>(vec: Vec<T>) -> impl Iterator<Item = T> {
| ---- ^^^^^^ this parameter takes ownership of the value
| |
| in this function
help: consider moving the expression out of the loop so it is only moved once
|
LL ~ let mut value = iter(vec);
LL ~ while let Some(item) = value.next() {
|
```
We use the presence of a `break` in the loop that would be affected by
the moved value as a heuristic for "shouldn't be cloned".
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121466.
---
*Point at continue and break that might be in the wrong place*
Sometimes move errors are because of a misplaced `continue`, but we didn't
surface that anywhere. Now when there are more than one set of nested loops
we show them out and point at the `continue` and `break` expressions within
that might need to go elsewhere.
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `foo`
--> $DIR/nested-loop-moved-value-wrong-continue.rs:46:18
|
LL | for foo in foos {
| ---
| |
| this reinitialization might get skipped
| move occurs because `foo` has type `String`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
...
LL | for bar in &bars {
| ---------------- inside of this loop
...
LL | baz.push(foo);
| --- value moved here, in previous iteration of loop
...
LL | qux.push(foo);
| ^^^ value used here after move
|
note: verify that your loop breaking logic is correct
--> $DIR/nested-loop-moved-value-wrong-continue.rs:41:17
|
LL | for foo in foos {
| ---------------
...
LL | for bar in &bars {
| ----------------
...
LL | continue;
| ^^^^^^^^ this `continue` advances the loop at line 33
help: consider moving the expression out of the loop so it is only moved once
|
LL ~ let mut value = baz.push(foo);
LL ~ for bar in &bars {
LL |
...
LL | if foo == *bar {
LL ~ value;
|
help: consider cloning the value if the performance cost is acceptable
|
LL | baz.push(foo.clone());
| ++++++++
```
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/92531.
collector: move ensure_sufficient_stack out of the loop
According to the docs this call has some overhead to putting it inside the loop doesn't seem like a good idea.
r? `@oli-obk`
Sometimes move errors are because of a misplaced `continue`, but we didn't
surface that anywhere. Now when there are more than one set of nested loops
we show them out and point at the `continue` and `break` expressions within
that might need to go elsewhere.
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `foo`
--> $DIR/nested-loop-moved-value-wrong-continue.rs:46:18
|
LL | for foo in foos {
| ---
| |
| this reinitialization might get skipped
| move occurs because `foo` has type `String`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
...
LL | for bar in &bars {
| ---------------- inside of this loop
...
LL | baz.push(foo);
| --- value moved here, in previous iteration of loop
...
LL | qux.push(foo);
| ^^^ value used here after move
|
note: verify that your loop breaking logic is correct
--> $DIR/nested-loop-moved-value-wrong-continue.rs:41:17
|
LL | for foo in foos {
| ---------------
...
LL | for bar in &bars {
| ----------------
...
LL | continue;
| ^^^^^^^^ this `continue` advances the loop at line 33
help: consider moving the expression out of the loop so it is only moved once
|
LL ~ let mut value = baz.push(foo);
LL ~ for bar in &bars {
LL |
...
LL | if foo == *bar {
LL ~ value;
|
help: consider cloning the value if the performance cost is acceptable
|
LL | baz.push(foo.clone());
| ++++++++
```
Fix#92531.
When encountering a move error on a value within a loop of any kind,
identify if the moved value belongs to a call expression that should not
be cloned and avoid the semantically incorrect suggestion. Also try to
suggest moving the call expression outside of the loop instead.
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `vec`
--> $DIR/recreating-value-in-loop-condition.rs:6:33
|
LL | let vec = vec!["one", "two", "three"];
| --- move occurs because `vec` has type `Vec<&str>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
LL | while let Some(item) = iter(vec).next() {
| ----------------------------^^^--------
| | |
| | value moved here, in previous iteration of loop
| inside of this loop
|
note: consider changing this parameter type in function `iter` to borrow instead if owning the value isn't necessary
--> $DIR/recreating-value-in-loop-condition.rs:1:17
|
LL | fn iter<T>(vec: Vec<T>) -> impl Iterator<Item = T> {
| ---- ^^^^^^ this parameter takes ownership of the value
| |
| in this function
help: consider moving the expression out of the loop so it is only moved once
|
LL ~ let mut value = iter(vec);
LL ~ while let Some(item) = value.next() {
|
```
We use the presence of a `break` in the loop that would be affected by
the moved value as a heuristic for "shouldn't be cloned".
Fix#121466.
Making `libcore` decide this is silly; the backend has so much better information about when it's a good idea.
So introduce a new `typed_swap` intrinsic with a fallback body, but replace that implementation for immediates and scalar pairs.
Don't show suggestion if slice pattern is not top-level
Close#120605
Don't show suggestion to add slicing (`[..]`) if the slice pattern is enclosed by struct like `Struct { a: [] }`.
For example, current rustc makes a suggestion as a comment. However, the pattern `a: []` is wrong, not scrutinee `&self.a`.
In this case, the structure type `a: Vec<Struct>` and the pattern `a: []` are different so I think the pattern should be fixed, not the scrutinee.
If the parent of the pattern that was the target of the error is a structure, I made the compiler not show a suggestion.
```rs
pub struct Struct {
a: Vec<Struct>,
}
impl Struct {
pub fn test(&self) {
if let [Struct { a: [] }] = &self.a {
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------- help: consider slicing here: `&self.a[..]`
println!("matches!")
}
}
}
```
Note:
* ~~I created `PatInfo.history` to store parent-child relationships for patterns, but this may be inefficient.~~
* I use two fields `parent_kind` and `current_kind` instead of vec. It may not performance issue.
* Currently only looking at direct parents, but may need to look at deeper ancestry.
Move check-cfg diagnostic logic into a separate file
as well as adding some triagebot mentions (for me) for check-cfg related files.
``@rustbot`` label +F-check-cfg
Register LLVM handlers for bad-alloc / OOM
LLVM's default bad-alloc handler may throw if exceptions are enabled,
and `operator new` isn't hooked at all by default. Now we register our
own handler that prints a message similar to fatal errors, then aborts.
We also call the function that registers the C++ `std::new_handler`.
Fixes#121305
Cc llvm/llvm-project#85281
r? ``@nikic``
