1126 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Trevor Gross
4455d1e57b
Rollup merge of #142571 - cjgillot:borrowed-classes, r=oli-obk
Reason about borrowed classes in CopyProp.

Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/141122

The current implementation of `CopyProp` avoids unifying two borrowed locals, as this would change the result of address comparison.

However, the implementation was inconsistent with the general algorithm, which identifies equivalence classes of locals and then replaces all locals by a single representative of their equivalence class.

This PR fixes it by forbidding the unification of two *classes* if any of those contain a borrowed local.
2025-06-20 23:25:55 -04:00
Mara Bos
4ca0f01a5a Update mir-opt tests. 2025-06-18 10:20:20 +02:00
David Wood
322cc31504
tests: {Meta,Pointee}Sized in non-minicore tests
As before, add `MetaSized` and `PointeeSized` traits to all of the
non-minicore `no_core` tests so that they don't fail for lack of
language items.
2025-06-16 23:04:33 +00:00
Camille GILLOT
c4b67c6d87 Reason about borrowed classes in CopyProp. 2025-06-16 14:17:13 +00:00
Camille GILLOT
71afc6f463 Add test. 2025-06-16 14:07:25 +00:00
León Orell Valerian Liehr
e06196da5b
Rollup merge of #142347 - azhogin:azhogin/async-drop-storage-live-dead-fix, r=oli-obk
Async drop - fix for StorageLive/StorageDead codegen for pinned future

Fixes: rust-lang/rust#140429, Fixes: rust-lang/rust#140531, Fixes: rust-lang/rust#141761, Fixes: rust-lang/rust#141409.

StorageLive/StorageDead codegen is corrected for pinned async drop future.
2025-06-15 23:51:56 +02:00
Andrew Zhogin
d6a9081612 Async drop - fix for StorageLive/StorageDead codegen for pinned async drop future 2025-06-14 15:10:08 +07:00
Ralf Jung
62418f4c56 intrinsics: rename min_align_of to align_of 2025-06-12 17:50:25 +02:00
bors
c6a955468b Auto merge of #141485 - dianqk:early_otherwise_branch_loop, r=oli-obk
mir-opt: Do not create storage marks in EarlyOtherwiseBranch

Fixes #141212.

The first commit add `StorageDead` by creating new indirect BB that makes CFG more complicated, but I think it's better to just not create storage marks.

r? mir-opt
2025-06-10 14:50:54 +00:00
bors
f0999ffdc4 Auto merge of #139118 - scottmcm:slice-get-unchecked-intrinsic, r=workingjubilee
`slice.get(i)` should use a slice projection in MIR, like `slice[i]` does

`slice[i]` is built-in magic, so ends up being quite different from `slice.get(i)` in MIR, even though they're both doing nearly identical operations -- checking the length of the slice then getting a ref/ptr to the element if it's in-bounds.

This PR adds a `slice_get_unchecked` intrinsic for `impl SliceIndex for usize` to use to fix that, so it no longer needs to do a bunch of lines of pointer math and instead just gets the obvious single statement.  (This is *not* used for the range versions, since `slice[i..]` and `slice[..k]` can't use the mir Slice projection as they're using fenceposts, not indices.)

I originally tried to do this with some kind of GVN pattern, but realized that I'm pretty sure it's not legal to optimize `BinOp::Offset` to `PlaceElem::Index` without an extremely complicated condition.  Basically, the problem is that the `Index` projection on a dereferenced slice pointer *cares about the metadata*, since it's UB to `PlaceElem::Index` outside the range described by the metadata.  But then you cast the fat pointer to a thin pointer then offset it, that *ignores* the slice length metadata, so it's possible to write things that are legal with `Offset` but would be UB if translated in the obvious way to `Index`.  Checking (or even determining) the necessary conditions for that would be complicated and error-prone, whereas this intrinsic-based approach is quite straight-forward.

Zero backend changes, because it just lowers to MIR, so it's already supported naturally by CTFE/Miri/cg_llvm/cg_clif.
2025-05-31 21:38:21 +00:00
bors
ec28ae9454 Auto merge of #141667 - lqd:lazy-maybe-init, r=matthewjasper
Add fast path for maybe-initializedness in liveness

r? `@matthewjasper`

Correct me if I'm wrong Matthew, but my understanding is that
1. `MaybeInitializedPlaces` is currently eagerly computed, in `do_mir_borrowck`
2. but this data is only used in liveness
3. and `liveness::trace` actually only uses it for drop-liveness

This PR moves the computation to `liveness::trace` which looks to be its only use-site. We also add a fast path there, so that it's only computed by drop-liveness.

This is interesting because 1) liveness is only computed for relevant live locals, 2) drop-liveness is only computed for relevant live locals with >0 drop points; 0 is the common case from our benchmarks, as far as I can tell, so even just computing the entire data lazily helps.

It seems possible to also reduce the domain here, and speed up the analysis for the cases where it has to be computed -- so I've left a fixme for that, and may look into it soon.

(I've come upon this while doing implementation work for polonius, so don't be too enamored with possible wins: the goal is to reduce the eventual polonius overhead and make it more palatable 😓)
2025-05-31 04:52:37 +00:00
Jubilee
3846f2f08f
Rollup merge of #141494 - dianqk:match-br-non-int, r=wesleywiser
mir-opt: Do not transform non-int type in match_branches

Fixes #141378.

r? mir-opt
2025-05-30 13:52:26 -07:00
Scott McMurray
4668124cc7 slice.get(i) should use a slice projection in MIR, like slice[i] does 2025-05-30 12:04:41 -07:00
beetrees
467eeabbb5
Stabilise repr128 2025-05-28 15:14:34 +01:00
bors
04a67d5a05 Auto merge of #141668 - tgross35:rollup-03gg6lf, r=tgross35
Rollup of 8 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang/rust#140367 (add `asm_cfg`: `#[cfg(...)]` within `asm!`)
 - rust-lang/rust#140894 (Make check-cfg diagnostics work in `#[doc(cfg(..))]`)
 - rust-lang/rust#141252 (gvn: bail out unavoidable non-ssa locals in repeat)
 - rust-lang/rust#141517 (rustdoc: use descriptive tooltip if doctest is conditionally ignored)
 - rust-lang/rust#141551 (Make two transmute-related MIR lints into HIR lint)
 - rust-lang/rust#141591 (ci: fix llvm test coverage)
 - rust-lang/rust#141647 (Bump master `stage0` compiler)
 - rust-lang/rust#141659 (Add `Result::map_or_default` and `Option::map_or_default`)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
2025-05-28 01:20:50 +00:00
Trevor Gross
ee4efa1f86
Rollup merge of #141252 - dianqk:gvn-repeat-index, r=saethlin
gvn: bail out unavoidable non-ssa locals in repeat

Fixes #141251.

We cannot transform `*elem` to `array[idx1]` in the following code, as `idx1` has already been modified.

```rust
    mir! {
        let array;
        let elem;
        {
            array = [*val; 5];
            elem = &array[idx1];
            idx1 = idx2;
            RET = *elem;
            Return()
        }
    }
```

Perhaps I could transform it to `array[0]`, but I prefer the conservative approach.

r? mir-opt
2025-05-27 20:28:31 -04:00
bors
be42293944 Auto merge of #129658 - saethlin:spare-a-crumb, r=jhpratt
Add some track_caller info to precondition panics

Currently, when you encounter a precondition check, you'll always get the caller location of the implementation of the precondition checks. But with this PR, you'll be told the location of the invalid call. Which is useful.

I thought of this while looking at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129642#issuecomment-2311703898.

The changes to `tests/ui/const*` happen because the const-eval interpreter skips `#[track_caller]` frames in its backtraces.

The perf implications of this are:
* Increased debug binary sizes. The caller_location implementation requires that the additional data we want to display here be stored in const allocations, which are deduplicated but not across crates. There is no impact on optimized build sizes. The panic path and the caller location data get optimized out.
* The compile time hit to opt-incr-patched bitmaps happens because the patch changes the line number of some function calls with precondition checks, causing us to go from 0 dirty CGUs to 1 dirty CGU.
* The other compile time hits are marginal but real, and due to doing a handful of new queries. Adding more useful data isn't completely free.
2025-05-27 22:11:53 +00:00
Rémy Rakic
ddeae148c5 switch dataflow test to a maybe-uninit analysis
This mir-opt test used the maybe-init dataflow analysis but it's now
lazy and doesn't emit the graphviz graph when it's not needed anymore.
2025-05-27 21:21:28 +00:00
Zalathar
3f526eeec4 coverage: Revert "unused local file IDs" due to empty function names
This reverts commit 3b22c21dd8c30f499051fe7a758ca0e5d81eb638, reversing
changes made to 5f292eea6d63abbd26f1e6e00a0b8cf21d828d7d.
2025-05-27 23:33:29 +10:00
dianqk
457f8ba447
mir-opt: Do not transform non-int type in match_branches 2025-05-26 18:15:54 +08:00
dianqk
8c7faa6ed1
mir-opt: Do not create storage marks for temporary locals 2025-05-24 15:36:06 +08:00
dianqk
145d2266d9
mir-opt: Create an indirect BB to add StorageDead 2025-05-24 11:01:18 +08:00
lcnr
326b7e9a6b yeet CanonicalVarInfo 2025-05-23 12:10:53 +00:00
Ben Kimock
e36dc78edd Add some track_caller info to precondition panics 2025-05-21 09:10:06 -04:00
Ralf Jung
a29756d085 make std::intrinsic functions actually be intrinsics 2025-05-20 08:09:16 +02:00
dianqk
be5d6c5425
gvn: bail out unavoidable non-ssa locals in repeat
We cannot transform `*elem` to `array[idx1]` in the following code,
as `idx1` has already been modified.

```rust
    mir! {
        let array;
        let elem;
        {
            array = [*val; 5];
            elem = &array[idx1];
            idx1 = idx2;
            RET = *elem;
            Return()
        }
    }
```
2025-05-19 21:35:49 +08:00
Stuart Cook
3b22c21dd8
Rollup merge of #140847 - Zalathar:unused-local-file, r=SparrowLii
coverage: Detect unused local file IDs to avoid an LLVM assertion

Each function's coverage metadata contains a *local file table* that maps local file IDs (used by the function's mapping regions) to global file IDs (shared by all functions in the same CGU).

LLVM requires all local file IDs to have at least one mapping region, and has an assertion that will fail if it detects a local file ID with no regions. To make sure that assertion doesn't fire, we need to detect and skip functions whose metadata would trigger it.

(This can't actually happen yet, because currently all of a function's spans must belong to the same file and expansion. But this will be an important edge case when adding expansion region support.)
2025-05-19 21:10:42 +10:00
dianqk
d2e5a3d131
gvn: avoid creating overlapping assignments 2025-05-18 18:42:00 +08:00
Matthias Krüger
f28428ea58
Rollup merge of #140151 - RalfJung:drop_in_place-is-not-an-intrinsic, r=Mark-Simulacrum
remove intrinsics::drop_in_place

This was only ever accidentally stable, and has been marked as deprecated since Rust 1.52, released almost 4 years ago. We've removed the old serialization `derive`s, maybe we can remove this one as well?

As suggested by ``@jhpratt,`` let's see what crater says for this one.
2025-05-10 16:26:02 +02:00
Zalathar
339556eb02 coverage: Enlarge empty spans during MIR instrumentation, not codegen
This allows us to assume that coverage spans will only be discarded during
codegen in very unusual situations.
2025-05-10 00:24:01 +10:00
Zalathar
4d5a1acebf coverage: Only merge adjacent coverage spans
This also removes some manipulation of the function signature span that only
made sense in the context of merging non-adjacent spans.
2025-05-06 20:42:25 +10:00
Guillaume Gomez
ab7623e93c
Rollup merge of #140115 - dianqk:gvn-matchbr, r=oli-obk
mir-opt: execute MatchBranchSimplification after GVN

This can provide more opportunities for MatchBranchSimplification.

Currently, rustc does not optimize the following code into a single statement at mir-opt, and this PR fixes the first case.

```rust
pub fn match1(c: bool, v1: i32, v2: i32) -> i32 {
    if c { v1 - v2 } else { v1 - v2 }
}

pub fn match2(c: bool, v1: i32) -> i32 {
    if c { v1 - 1 } else { v1 - 1 }
}
```

https://rust.godbolt.org/z/Y8xPMjrfM

r? mir-opt
2025-05-05 21:32:30 +02:00
Mara Bos
ce50b4fd9d Bless mir opt tests. 2025-05-01 12:29:43 +02:00
Andrew Zhogin
c366756a85 AsyncDrop implementation using shim codegen of async_drop_in_place::{closure}, scoped async drop added. 2025-04-28 16:23:13 +07:00
Ralf Jung
e7efab9ec9 remove intrinsics::drop_in_place 2025-04-22 14:06:09 +02:00
bors
8bf5a8d12f Auto merge of #132833 - est31:stabilize_let_chains, r=fee1-dead
Stabilize let chains in the 2024 edition

# Stabilization report

This proposes the stabilization of `let_chains` ([tracking issue], [RFC 2497]) in the [2024 edition] of Rust.

[tracking issue]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53667
[RFC 2497]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2497
[2024 edition]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/edition-guide/rust-2024/index.html

## What is being stabilized

The ability to `&&`-chain `let` statements inside `if` and `while` is being stabilized, allowing intermixture with boolean expressions. The patterns inside the `let` sub-expressions can be irrefutable or refutable.

```Rust
struct FnCall<'a> {
    fn_name: &'a str,
    args: Vec<i32>,
}

fn is_legal_ident(s: &str) -> bool {
    s.chars()
        .all(|c| ('a'..='z').contains(&c) || ('A'..='Z').contains(&c))
}

impl<'a> FnCall<'a> {
    fn parse(s: &'a str) -> Option<Self> {
        if let Some((fn_name, after_name)) = s.split_once("(")
            && !fn_name.is_empty()
            && is_legal_ident(fn_name)
            && let Some((args_str, "")) = after_name.rsplit_once(")")
        {
            let args = args_str
                .split(',')
                .map(|arg| arg.parse())
                .collect::<Result<Vec<_>, _>>();
            args.ok().map(|args| FnCall { fn_name, args })
        } else {
            None
        }
    }
    fn exec(&self) -> Option<i32> {
        let iter = self.args.iter().copied();
        match self.fn_name {
            "sum" => Some(iter.sum()),
            "max" => iter.max(),
            "min" => iter.min(),
            _ => None,
        }
    }
}

fn main() {
    println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("sum(1,2,3)").unwrap().exec());
    println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("max(4,5)").unwrap().exec());
}
```

The feature will only be stabilized for the 2024 edition and future editions. Users of past editions will get an error with a hint to update the edition.

closes #53667

## Why 2024 edition?

Rust generally tries to ship new features to all editions. So even the oldest editions receive the newest features. However, sometimes a feature requires a breaking change so much that offering the feature without the breaking change makes no sense. This occurs rarely, but has happened in the 2018 edition already with `async` and `await` syntax. It required an edition boundary in order for `async`/`await` to become keywords, and the entire feature foots on those keywords.

In the instance of let chains, the issue is the drop order of `if let` chains. If we want `if let` chains to be compatible with `if let`, drop order makes it hard for us to [generate correct MIR]. It would be strange to have different behaviour for `if let ... {}` and `if true && let ... {}`. So it's better to [stay consistent with `if let`].

In edition 2024, [drop order changes] have been introduced to make `if let` temporaries be lived more shortly. These changes also affected `if let` chains. These changes make sense even if you don't take the `if let` chains MIR generation problem into account. But if we want to use them as the solution to the MIR generation problem, we need to restrict let chains to edition 2024 and beyond: for let chains, it's not just a change towards more sensible behaviour, but one required for correct function.

[generate correct MIR]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104843
[stay consistent with `if let`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103293#issuecomment-1293408574
[drop order changes]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124085

## Introduction considerations

As edition 2024 is very new, this stabilization PR only makes it possible to use let chains on 2024 without that feature gate, it doesn't mark that feature gate as stable/removed. I would propose to continue offering the `let_chains` feature (behind a feature gate) for a limited time (maybe 3 months after stabilization?) on older editions to allow nightly users to adopt edition 2024 at their own pace. After that, the feature gate shall be marked as *stabilized*, not removed, and replaced by an error on editions 2021 and below.

## Implementation history

* History from before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR] that was reverted.
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94927
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94951
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94974
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95008
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97295
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98633
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99731
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102394
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100526
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100538
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102998
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103405
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103293
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107251
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110568
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115677
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117743
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117770
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118191
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119554
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129394
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132828
* https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1179
* https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1251
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/pull/5910

[original stabilization PR]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94927

## Adoption history

### In the compiler

* History before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR].
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115983
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116549
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116688

### Outside of the compiler

* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11750
* [rspack](https://github.com/web-infra-dev/rspack)
* [risingwave](https://github.com/risingwavelabs/risingwave)
* [dylint](https://github.com/trailofbits/dylint)
* [convex-backend](https://github.com/get-convex/convex-backend)
* [tikv](https://github.com/tikv/tikv)
* [Daft](https://github.com/Eventual-Inc/Daft)
* [greptimedb](https://github.com/GreptimeTeam/greptimedb)

## Tests

<details>

### Intentional restrictions

[`partially-macro-expanded.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/partially-macro-expanded.rs), [`macro-expanded.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/macro-expanded.rs): it is possible to use macros to expand to both the pattern and the expression inside a let chain, but not to the entire `let pat = expr` operand.
[`parens.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/parens.rs): `if (let pat = expr)` is not allowed in chains
[`ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs): `let...else` doesn't support chaining.

### Overlap with match guards

[`move-guard-if-let-chain.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/move-guard-if-let-chain.rs): test for the `use moved value` error working well in match guards. could maybe be extended with let chains that have more than one `let`
[`shadowing.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/shadowing.rs): shadowing in if let guards works as expected
[`ast-validate-guards.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-validate-guards.rs): let chains in match guards require the match guards feature gate

### Simple cases from the early days

PR #88642 has added some tests with very simple usages of `let else`, mostly as regression tests to early bugs.

[`then-else-blocks.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/then-else-blocks.rs)
[`ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs)
[`issue-90722.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-90722.rs)
[`issue-92145.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-92145.rs)

### Drop order/MIR scoping tests

[`issue-100276.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/drop/issue-100276.rs): let expressions on RHS aren't terminating scopes
[`drop_order.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/drop/drop_order.rs): exhaustive temporary drop order test for various Rust constructs, including let chains
[`scope.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/scope.rs): match guard scoping test
[`drop-scope.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/drop-scope.rs): another match guard scoping test, ensuring that temporaries in if-let guards live for the arm
[`drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/drop/drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs): if let rescoping on edition 2024, including chains
[`mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/mir/mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs): comprehensive drop order test for let chains, distinguishes editions 2021 and 2024.
[`issue-99938.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-99938.rs), [`issue-99852.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/mir/issue-99852.rs) both bad MIR ICEs fixed by #102394

### Linting

[`irrefutable-lets.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/irrefutable-lets.rs): trailing and leading irrefutable let patterns get linted for, others don't. The lint is turned off for `else if`.
[`issue-121070-let-range.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/lint/issue-121070-let-range.rs): regression test for false positive of the unused parens lint, precedence requires the `()`s here

### Parser: intentional restrictions

[`disallowed-positions.rs`](2128d8df0e/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs): `let` in expression context is rejected everywhere except at the top level
[`invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs): nested `let` is not allowed (let's are no legal expressions just because they are allowed in `if` and `while`).

### Parser: recovery

[`issue-103381.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/parser/issues/issue-103381.rs): Graceful recovery of incorrect chaining of `if` and `if let`
[`semi-in-let-chain.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/parser/semi-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray `;`s in let chains give nice errors (`if_chain!` users might be accustomed to `;`s)
[`deli-ident-issue-1.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/parser/deli-ident-issue-1.rs), [`brace-in-let-chain.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/parser/brace-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray unclosed `{`s in let chains give nice errors and hints

### Misc

[`conflicting_bindings.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/pattern/usefulness/conflicting_bindings.rs): the conflicting bindings check also works in let chains. Personally, I'd extend it to chains with multiple let's as well.
[`let-chains-attr.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/expr/if/attrs/let-chains-attr.rs): attributes work on let chains

### Tangential tests with `#![feature(let_chains)]`

[`if-let.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/coverage/branch/if-let.rs): MC/DC coverage tests for let chains
[`logical_or_in_conditional.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/mir-opt/building/logical_or_in_conditional.rs): not really about let chains, more about dropping/scoping behaviour of `||`
[`stringify.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs): exhaustive test of the `stringify` macro
[`expanded-interpolation.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-interpolation.rs), [`expanded-exhaustive.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-exhaustive.rs): Exhaustive test of `-Zunpretty`
[`diverges-not.rs`](4adafcf40a/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-0000-never_patterns/diverges-not.rs): Never type, mostly tangential to let chains

</details>

## Possible future work

* There is proposals to allow `if let Pat(bindings) = expr {}` to be written as `if expr is Pat(bindings) {}` ([RFC 3573]). `if let` chains are a natural extension of the already existing `if let` syntax, and I'd argue orthogonal towards `is` syntax.
  * https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/297
* One could have similar chaining inside `let ... else` statements. There is no proposed RFC for this however, nor is it implemented on nightly.
* Match guards have the `if` keyword as well, but on stable Rust, they don't support `let`. The functionality is available via an unstable feature ([`if_let_guard` tracking issue]). Stabilization of let chains affects this feature in so far as match guards containing let chains now only need the `if_let_guard` feature gate be present instead of also the `let_chains` feature (NOTE: this PR doesn't implement this simplification, it's left for future work).

[RFC 3573]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3573
[`if_let_guard` tracking issue]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51114

## Open questions / blockers

- [ ] bad recovery if you don't put a `let` (I don't think this is a blocker): [#117977](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117977)
- [x] An instance where a temporary lives shorter than with nested ifs, breaking compilation: [#103476](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/103476). Personally I don't think this is a blocker either, as it's an edge case. Edit: turns out to not reproduce in edition 2025 any more, due to let rescoping. regression test added in #133093
- [x] One should probably extend the tests for `move-guard-if-let-chain.rs` and `conflicting_bindings.rs` to have chains with multiple let's: done in 133093
- [x] Parsing rejection tests: addressed by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132828
- [x] [Style](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/346005-t-style/topic/let.20chains.20stabilization.20and.20formatting): https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139456
- [x] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/86730 explicitly mentions `let_else`. I think we can live with `let pat = expr` not evaluating as `expr` for macro_rules macros, especially given that `let pat = expr` is not a legal expression anywhere except inside `if` and `while`.
- [x] Documentation in the reference: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1740
- [x] Add chapter to the Rust 2024 [edition guide]: https://github.com/rust-lang/edition-guide/pull/337
- [x] Resolve open questions on desired drop order.

[original reference PR]: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1179
[edition guide]: https://github.com/rust-lang/edition-guide
2025-04-22 07:54:10 +00:00
dianqk
5881b7c68b
mir-opt: execute MatchBranchSimplification after GVN
This can provide more opportunities for MatchBranchSimplification.
2025-04-21 21:46:44 +08:00
Chris Denton
5d2375f789
Rollup merge of #139042 - compiler-errors:do-not-optimize-switchint, r=saethlin
Do not remove trivial `SwitchInt` in analysis MIR

This PR ensures that we don't prematurely remove trivial `SwitchInt` terminators which affects both the borrow-checking and runtime semantics (i.e. UB) of the code. Previously the `SimplifyCfg` optimization was removing `SwitchInt` terminators when they was "trivial", i.e. when all arms branched to the same basic block, even if that `SwitchInt` terminator had the side-effect of reading an operand which (for example) may not be initialized or may point to an invalid place in memory.

This behavior is unlike all other optimizations, which are only applied after "analysis" (i.e. borrow-checking) is finished, and which Miri disables to make sure the compiler doesn't silently remove UB.

Fixing this code "breaks" (i.e. unmasks) code that used to borrow-check but no longer does, like:

```rust
fn foo() {
    let x;
    let (0 | _) = x;
}
```

This match expression should perform a read because `_` does not shadow the `0` literal pattern, and the compiler should have to read the match scrutinee to compare it to 0. I've checked that this behavior does not actually manifest in practice via a crater run which came back clean: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139042#issuecomment-2767436367

As a side-note, it may be tempting to suggest that this is actually a good thing or that we should preserve this behavior. If we wanted to make this work (i.e. trivially optimize out reads from matches that are redundant like `0 | _`), then we should be enabling this behavior *after* fixing this. However, I think it's kinda unprincipled, and for example other variations of the code don't even work today, e.g.:

```rust
fn foo() {
    let x;
    let (0.. | _) = x;
}
```
2025-04-19 19:30:46 +00:00
est31
162daaa2fa Remove let_chains feature gate from even more tests 2025-04-18 15:57:29 +02:00
Mara Bos
1ca9300989 Update tests. 2025-04-15 11:14:23 +02:00
Matthias Krüger
143f5d7696
Rollup merge of #139767 - compiler-errors:www, r=oli-obk
Visit place in `BackwardIncompatibleDropHint` statement

Remove a weird hack from the `LocalUpdater` where we were manually visiting the place stored in a `StatementKind::BackwardIncompatibleDropHint` because the MIR visitor impls weren't doing so.

Also, clean up `BackwardIncompatibleDropHint`s in `CleanupPostBorrowck`, since they're not needed for runtime MIR.
2025-04-14 18:15:32 +02:00
Michael Goulet
2f96e784e2 Visit place in BackwardIncompatibleDropHint statement 2025-04-13 22:01:54 +00:00
clubby789
9f35fe47c7 JumpThreading: Re-enable and fix Not ops on non-booleans 2025-04-13 20:29:49 +00:00
Jacob Pratt
a6608294a9
Rollup merge of #137835 - scottmcm:signum, r=compiler-errors
Use `BinOp::Cmp` for `iNN::signum`

This way it can use the nice new LLVM intrinsic in LLVM20.
2025-04-11 21:20:59 +02:00
bors
7d7de5bf3c Auto merge of #139088 - spastorino:ergonomic-ref-counting-2, r=nikomatsakis
Ergonomic ref counting: optimize away clones when possible

This PR build on top of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134797. It optimizes codegen of ergonomic ref-counting when the type being `use`d is only known to be copy after monomorphization. We avoid codening a clone and generate bitwise copy instead.

RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3680
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132290
Project goal: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-project-goals/issues/107

r? `@nikomatsakis`

This PR could better sit on top of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131650 but as it did not land yet I've decided to just do minimal changes. It may be the case that doing what I'm doing regress the performance and we may need to go the full route of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131650.
cc `@saethlin` in this regard.
2025-04-10 09:08:23 +00:00
bors
f06e5c1e35 Auto merge of #139327 - cjgillot:gvn-place, r=oli-obk
Allow GVN to produce places and not just locals.

That may be too big of a hammer, as we may introduce new deref projections (possible UB footgun + probably not good for perf).

The second commit opts out of introducing projections that don't have a stable offset, which is probably what we want. Hence no new Deref and no new Index projections.

Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138936
cc `@scottmcm` `@dianqk`
2025-04-09 08:50:33 +00:00
Michael Goulet
3ee62a906e Do not optimize out SwitchInt before borrowck, or if Zmir-preserve-ub 2025-04-08 21:05:20 +00:00
Santiago Pastorino
a0856eaff6
Add mir opt tests to be sure we generate copy, clones and moves when corresponds 2025-04-07 16:53:11 -03:00
Bennet Bleßmann
7dd57f085c
update/bless tests 2025-04-06 21:41:47 +02:00
Camille GILLOT
d9caf840e1 Only introduce stable projections. 2025-04-04 10:55:42 +00:00