Turn remaining non-structural-const-in-pattern lints into hard errors
This completes the implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120362 by turning our remaining future-compat lints into hard errors: indirect_structural_match and pointer_structural_match.
They have been future-compat lints for a while (indirect_structural_match for many years, pointer_structural_match since Rust 1.75 (released Dec 28, 2023)), and have shown up in dependency breakage reports since Rust 1.78 (just released on May 2, 2024). I don't expect a lot of code will still depend on them, but we will of course do a crater run.
A lot of cleanup is now possible in const_to_pat, but that is deferred to a later PR.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70861
There are a few tests that depend on some target features **not** being
enabled by default, and usually they are correct with the default x86-64
target CPU. However, in downstream builds we have modified the default
to fit our distros -- `x86-64-v2` in RHEL 9 and `x86-64-v3` in RHEL 10
-- and the latter especially trips tests that expect not to have AVX.
These cases are few enough that we can just set them back explicitly.
Do not ICE on invalid consts when walking mono-reachable blocks
The `bug!` here was written under the logic of "this condition is impossible, right?" except that of course, if the compiler is given code that results in an compile error, then the situation is possible.
So now we just direct errors into the already-existing path for when we can't do a mono-time optimization.
Delay interning errors to after validation
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122398fixes#122548
This improves diagnostics since validation errors are usually more helpful compared with interning errors that just make broad statements about the entire constant
r? `@RalfJung`
Codegen ZSTs without an allocation
This makes sure that &[] is equivalent to unsafe code (from_raw_parts(dangling, 0)). No new stable guarantee is intended about whether or not we do this, this is just an optimization.
This regressed in #67000 (no comments I can see about that regression in the PR, though it did change the test modified here). We had previously performed this optimization since #63635.
This makes sure that &[] is just as efficient as indirecting through
unsafe code (from_raw_parts). No new stable guarantee is intended about
whether or not we do this, this is just an optimization.
Co-authored-by: Ralf Jung <post@ralfj.de>
Use `/* value */` as a placeholder
The expression `value` isn't a valid suggestion; let's use `/* value */` as a placeholder (which is also invalid) since it more clearly signals to the user that they need to fill it in with something meaningful. This parallels the suggestions we have in a couple other places, like arguments.
We could also print the type name instead of `/* value */`, especially if it's suggestable, but I don't care strongly about that.
Trait predicates for types which have errors may still
evaluate to OK leading to downstream ICEs. Now we return
a selection error for such types in candidate assembly and
thereby prevent such issues
Tweak value suggestions in `borrowck` and `hir_analysis`
Unify the output of `suggest_assign_value` and `ty_kind_suggestion`.
Ideally we'd make these a single function, but doing so would likely require modify the crate dependency tree.
De-LLVM the unchecked shifts [MCP#693]
This is just one part of the MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/693), but it's the one that IMHO removes the most noise from the standard library code.
Seems net simpler this way, since MIR already supported heterogeneous shifts anyway, and thus it's not more work for backends than before.
r? WaffleLapkin
This is just one part of the MCP, but it's the one that IMHO removes the most noise from the standard library code.
Seems net simpler this way, since MIR already supported heterogeneous shifts anyway, and thus it's not more work for backends than before.
Stabilize `unchecked_{add,sub,mul}`
Tracking issue: #85122
I think we might as well just stabilize these basic three. They're the ones that have `nuw`/`nsw` flags in LLVM.
Notably, this doesn't include the potentially-more-complex or -more-situational things like `unchecked_neg` or `unchecked_shr` that are under different feature flags.
To quote Ralf https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85122#issuecomment-1681669646,
> Are there any objections to stabilizing at least `unchecked_{add,sub,mul}`? For those there shouldn't be any surprises about what their safety requirements are.
*Semantially* these are [already available on stable, even in `const`, via](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=bdb1ff889b61950897f1e9f56d0c9a36) `checked_*`+`unreachable_unchecked`. So IMHO we might as well just let people write them directly, rather than try to go through a `let Some(x) = x.checked_add(y) else { unsafe { hint::unreachable_unchecked() }};` dance.
I added additional text to each method to attempt to better describe the behaviour and encourage `wrapping_*` instead.
r? rust-lang/libs-api
