Proper support for cross-crate recursive const stability checks
~~Stacked on top of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132492; only the last three commits are new.~~
In a crate without `staged_api` but with `-Zforce-unstable-if-unmarked`, we now subject all functions marked with `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` to recursive const stability checks. We require an opt-in so that by default, a crate can be built with `-Zforce-unstable-if-unmarked` and use nightly features as usual. This property is recorded in the crate metadata so when a `staged_api` crate calls such a function, it sees the `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` and allows it to be exposed on stable. This, finally, will let us expose `const fn` from hashbrown on stable.
The second commit makes const stability more like regular stability: via `check_missing_const_stability`, we ensure that all publicly reachable functions have a const stability attribute -- both in `staged_api` crates and `-Zforce-unstable-if-unmarked` crates. To achieve this, we move around the stability computation so that const stability is computed after regular stability is done. This lets us access the final result of the regular stability computation, which we use so that `const fn` can inherit the regular stability (but only if that is "unstable"). Fortunately, this lets us get rid of an `Option` in `ConstStability`.
This is the last PR that I have planned in this series.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Feature gate yield expressions not in 2024
This changes it so that yield expressions are no longer allowed in the 2024 edition without a feature gate. We are currently only reserving the `gen` keyword in the 2024 edition, and not allowing anything else to be implicitly enabled by the edition.
In practice this doesn't have a significant difference since yield expressions can't really be used outside of coroutines or gen blocks, which have their own feature gates. However, it does affect what is accepted pre-expansion, and I would feel more comfortable not allowing yield expressions.
I believe the stabilization process for gen blocks or coroutines will not need to check the edition here, so this shouldn't ever be needed.
This is consistent with all other diagnostics I could find containing
features and enables the use of `DiagSymbolList` for generalizing
diagnostics for unstable library features to multiple features.
Remove detail from label/note that is already available in other note
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
*Ignore first three commits from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132086.*
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
Rename macro `SmartPointer` to `CoercePointee`
As per resolution #129104 we will rename the macro to better reflect the technical specification of the feature and clarify the communication.
- `SmartPointer` is renamed to `CoerceReferent`
- `#[pointee]` attribute is renamed to `#[referent]`
- `#![feature(derive_smart_pointer)]` gate is renamed to `#![feature(derive_coerce_referent)]`.
- Any mention of `SmartPointer` in the file names are renamed accordingly.
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@nikomatsakis` `@Darksonn`
Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
terminology: #[feature] *enables* a feature (instead of "declaring" or "activating" it)
Mostly, we currently call a feature that has a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` attribute in the current crate a "declared" feature. I think that is confusing as it does not align with what "declaring" usually means. Furthermore, we *also* refer to `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]` as *declaring* a feature (e.g. in [these diagnostics](f25e5abea2/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl (L297-L301))), which aligns better with what "declaring" usually means. To make things worse, the functions `tcx.features().active(...)` and `tcx.features().declared(...)` both exist and they are doing almost the same thing (testing whether a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` exists) except that `active` would ICE if the feature is not an unstable lang feature. On top of this, the callback when a feature is activated/declared is called `set_enabled`, and many comments also talk about "enabling" a feature.
So really, our terminology is just a mess.
I would suggest we use "declaring a feature" for saying that something is/was guarded by a feature (e.g. `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]`), and "enabling a feature" for `#[feature(name)]`. This PR implements that.
stabilize Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance APIs
Given that [RFC 3559](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3559-rust-has-provenance.html) has been accepted, t-lang has approved the concept of provenance to exist in the language. So I think it's time that we stabilize the strict provenance and exposed provenance APIs, and discuss provenance explicitly in the docs:
```rust
// core::ptr
pub const fn without_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub const fn dangling<T>() -> *const T;
pub const fn without_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
pub const fn dangling_mut<T>() -> *mut T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
impl<T: ?Sized> *const T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> *mut T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> NonNull<T> {
pub fn addr(self) -> NonZero<usize>;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(NonZero<usize>) -> NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
}
```
I also did a pass over the docs to adjust them, because this is no longer an "experiment". The `ptr` docs now discuss the concept of provenance in general, and then they go into the two families of APIs for dealing with provenance: Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance. I removed the discussion of how pointers also have an associated "address space" -- that is not actually tracked in the pointer value, it is tracked in the type, so IMO it just distracts from the core point of provenance. I also adjusted the docs for `with_exposed_provenance` to make it clear that we cannot guarantee much about this function, it's all best-effort.
There are two unstable lints associated with the strict_provenance feature gate; I moved them to a new [strict_provenance_lints](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130351) feature since I didn't want this PR to have an even bigger FCP. ;)
`@rust-lang/opsem` Would be great to get some feedback on the docs here. :)
Nominating for `@rust-lang/libs-api.`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95228.
[FCP comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130350#issuecomment-2395114536)
Finish stabilization of `result_ffi_guarantees`
The internal linting has been changed, so all that is left is making sure we stabilize what we want to stabilize.
Add `&pin (mut|const) T` type position sugar
This adds parser support for `&pin mut T` and `&pin const T` references. These are desugared to `Pin<&mut T>` and `Pin<&T>` in the AST lowering phases.
This PR currently includes #130526 since that one is in the commit queue. Only the most recent commits (bd450027eb4a94b814a7dd9c0fa29102e6361149 and following) are new.
Tracking:
- #130494
r? `@compiler-errors`
Autodiff Upstreaming - enzyme frontend
This is an upstream PR for the `autodiff` rustc_builtin_macro that is part of the autodiff feature.
For the full implementation, see: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129175
**Content:**
It contains a new `#[autodiff(<args>)]` rustc_builtin_macro, as well as a `#[rustc_autodiff]` builtin attribute.
The autodiff macro is applied on function `f` and will expand to a second function `df` (name given by user).
It will add a dummy body to `df` to make sure it type-checks. The body will later be replaced by enzyme on llvm-ir level,
we therefore don't really care about the content. Most of the changes (700 from 1.2k) are in `compiler/rustc_builtin_macros/src/autodiff.rs`, which expand the macro. Nothing except expansion is implemented for now.
I have a fallback implementation for relevant functions in case that rustc should be build without autodiff support. The default for now will be off, although we want to flip it later (once everything landed) to on for nightly. For the sake of CI, I have flipped the defaults, I'll revert this before merging.
**Dummy function Body:**
The first line is an `inline_asm` nop to make inlining less likely (I have additional checks to prevent this in the middle end of rustc. If `f` gets inlined too early, we can't pass it to enzyme and thus can't differentiate it.
If `df` gets inlined too early, the call site will just compute this dummy code instead of the derivatives, a correctness issue. The following black_box lines make sure that none of the input arguments is getting optimized away before we replace the body.
**Motivation:**
The user facing autodiff macro can verify the user input. Then I write it as args to the rustc_attribute, so from here on I can know that these values should be sensible. A rustc_attribute also turned out to be quite nice to attach this information to the corresponding function and carry it till the backend.
This is also just an experiment, I expect to adjust the user facing autodiff macro based on user feedback, to improve usability.
As a simple example of what this will do, we can see this expansion:
From:
```
#[autodiff(df, Reverse, Duplicated, Const, Active)]
pub fn f1(x: &[f64], y: f64) -> f64 {
unimplemented!()
}
```
to
```
#[rustc_autodiff]
#[inline(never)]
pub fn f1(x: &[f64], y: f64) -> f64 {
::core::panicking::panic("not implemented")
}
#[rustc_autodiff(Reverse, Duplicated, Const, Active,)]
#[inline(never)]
pub fn df(x: &[f64], dx: &mut [f64], y: f64, dret: f64) -> f64 {
unsafe { asm!("NOP"); };
::core::hint::black_box(f1(x, y));
::core::hint::black_box((dx, dret));
::core::hint::black_box(f1(x, y))
}
```
I will add a few more tests once I figured out why rustc rebuilds every time I touch a test.
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124509
try-job: dist-x86_64-msvc
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
Compiler & its UI tests: Rename remaining occurrences of "object safe" to "dyn compatible"
Follow-up to #130826.
Part of #130852.
1. 1st commit: Fix stupid oversights. Should've been part of #130826.
2. 2nd commit: Rename the unstable feature `object_safe_for_dispatch` to `dyn_compatible_for_dispatch`. Might not be worth the churn, you decide.
3. 3rd commit: Apply the renaming to all UI tests (contents and paths).
Make opaque types regular HIR nodes
Having opaque types as HIR owner introduces all sorts of complications. This PR proposes to make them regular HIR nodes instead.
I haven't gone through all the test changes yet, so there may be a few surprises.
Many thanks to `@camelid` for the first draft.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129023Fixes#129099Fixes#125843Fixes#119716Fixes#121422
Add support for reborrowing pinned method receivers
This builds on #130526 to add pinned reborrowing for method receivers. This enables the folllowing examples to work:
```rust
#![feature(pin_ergonomics)]
#![allow(incomplete_features)]
use std::pin::Pin;
pub struct Foo;
impl Foo {
fn foo(self: Pin<&mut Self>) {
}
fn baz(self: Pin<&Self>) {
}
}
pub fn bar(x: Pin<&mut Foo>) {
x.foo();
x.foo();
x.baz(); // Pin<&mut Foo> is downgraded to Pin<&Foo>
}
pub fn baaz(x: Pin<&Foo>) {
x.baz();
x.baz();
}
```
This PR includes the original one, which is currently in the commit queue, but the only code changes are in the latest commit (d3c53aaa5c6fcb1018c58d229bc5d92202fa6880).
#130494
r? `@compiler-errors`
Implement RFC3695 Allow boolean literals as cfg predicates
This PR implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695: allow boolean literals as cfg predicates, i.e. `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)`.
r? `@nnethercote` *(or anyone with parser knowledge)*
cc `@clubby789`
