Mark float intrinsics with no preconditions as safe
Note: for ease of reviewing, the list of safe intrinsics is sorted in the first commit, and then safe intrinsics are added in the second commit.
All *recently added* float intrinsics have been correctly marked as safe to call due to the fact that they have no preconditions. This adds the remaining float intrinsics which are safe to call to the safe intrinsic list, and removes the unsafe blocks around their calls.
---
Side note: this may want a try run before being added to the queue, since I'm not sure if there's any tier-2 code that uses these intrinsics that might not be tested on the usual PR flow. We've already uncovered a few places in subtrees that do this, and it's worth double-checking before clogging up the queue.
don't apply temporary lifetime extension rules to non-extended `super let`
Reference PR: rust-lang/reference#1980
This changes the semantics for `super let` (and macros implemented in terms of it, such as `pin!`, `format_args!`, `write!`, and `println!`) as suggested by ````@theemathas```` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/145784#issuecomment-3218658335, making `super let` initializers only count as [extending expressions](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/destructors.html#extending-based-on-expressions) when the `super let` itself is within an extending block. Since `super let` initializers aren't temporary drop scopes, their temporaries outside of inner temporary scopes are effectively always extended, even when not in extending positions; this only affects two cases as far as I can tell:
- Block tail expressions in Rust 2024. This PR makes `f(pin!({ &temp() }))` drop `temp()` at the end of the block in Rust 2024, whereas previously it would live until after the call to `f` because syntactically the `temp()` was in an extending position as a result of `super let` in `pin!`'s expansion.
- `super let` nested within a non-extended `super let` is no longer extended. i.e. a normal `let` is required to treat `super let`s as extending (in which case nested `super let`s will also be extending).
Closesrust-lang/rust#145784
This is a breaking change. Both static and dynamic semantics are affected. The most likely breakage is for programs to stop compiling, but it's technically possible for drop order to silently change as well (as in rust-lang/rust#145784). Since this affects stable macros, it probably would need a crater run.
Nominating for discussion alongside rust-lang/rust#145784: ````@rustbot```` label +I-lang-nominated +I-libs-api-nominated
Tracking issue for `super let`: rust-lang/rust#139076
Display ?Sized, const, and lifetime parameters in trait item suggestions across a crate boundary
context: rust-lang/rust#145929
This fixes the MetaSized issue and adds const generics and early bound lifetimes. Late bound lifetimes are harder because they aren't returned by `generics_of`. I'm going to look into it, but there's no guarantee I'll be successful.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/146404.
r? `@BoxyUwu`
Migrate `UnsizedConstParamTy` to unstable impl of `ConstParamTy_`
Now that we have ``#[unstable_feature_bound]``, we can remove ``UnsizedConstParamTy`` that was meant to be an unstable impl of stable type and ``ConstParamTy_`` trait.
r? `@BoxyUwU`
update fixme in compare_method_predicate_entailment resulting from review of EII
r? `@lcnr`
Just the comment update separately from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146348/files since it doesn't really belong in that PR. Should be trivial
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- rust-lang/rust#145463 (Reject invalid literal suffixes in tuple indexing, tuple struct indexing, and struct field name position)
- rust-lang/rust#145929 (fix APITIT being treated as a normal generic parameter in suggestions)
- rust-lang/rust#146001 (Update getopts to remove unicode-width dependency)
- rust-lang/rust#146365 (triagebot: warn about #[rustc_intrinsic_const_stable_indirect])
- rust-lang/rust#146366 (add approx_delta to all gamma tests)
- rust-lang/rust#146373 (fix comments about trait solver cycle heads)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Implement Integer funnel shifts
Tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#145686
ACP: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/642
This implements funnel shifts on primitive integer types. Implements this for cg_llvm, with a fallback impl for everything else
Thanks `@folkertdev` for the fixes and tests
cc `@rust-lang/libs-api`
fix drop scope for `super let` bindings within `if let`
Fixesrust-lang/rust#145328 by making non-lifetime-extended `super let` reuse the logic used to compute drop scopes for non-lifetime-extended temporaries.
Also fixesrust-lang/rust#145374, which regressed due to rust-lang/rust#143376 introducing `if let`-like scopes for match arms with guards.
Tracking issue for `super let`: rust-lang/rust#139076
This is a regression fix / breaking change for macros stably exposing `super let`, including `pin!` and `format_args!`.
Nominating to be discussed alongside rust-lang/rust#145328: ```@rustbot``` label +I-lang-nominated +I-libs-api-nominated
add a scope for `if let` guard temporaries and bindings
This fixes my concern with `if let` guard drop order, namely that the guard's bindings and temporaries were being dropped after their arm's pattern's bindings, instead of before (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/141295#issuecomment-2968975596). The guard's bindings and temporaries now live in a new scope, which extends until (but not past) the end of the arm, guaranteeing they're dropped before the arm's pattern's bindings.
This only introduces a new scope for match arms with guards. Perf results (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143376#issuecomment-3034922617) seemed to indicate there wasn't a significant hit to introduce a new scope on all match arms, but guard patterns (rust-lang/rust#129967) will likely benefit from only adding new scopes when necessary (with some patterns requiring multiple nested scopes).
Tracking issue for `if_let_guard`: rust-lang/rust#51114
Tests are adapted from examples by `@traviscross,` `@est31,` and myself on rust-lang/rust#141295.
atomicrmw on pointers: move integer-pointer cast hacks into backend
Conceptually, we want to have atomic operations on pointers of the form `fn atomic_add(ptr: *mut T, offset: usize, ...)`. However, LLVM does not directly support such operations (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/120837), so we have to cast the `offset` to a pointer somewhere.
This PR moves that hack into the LLVM backend, so that the standard library, intrinsic, and Miri all work with the conceptual operation we actually want. Hopefully, one day LLVM will gain a way to represent these operations without integer-pointer casts, and then the hack will disappear entirely.
Cc ```@nikic``` -- this is the best we can do right now, right?
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134617
Distinguish prepending and replacing self ty in predicates
There are two kinds of functions called `with_self_ty`:
1. Prepends the `Self` type onto an `ExistentialPredicate` which lacks it in its internal representation.
2. Replaces the `Self` type of an existing predicate, either for diagnostics purposes or in the new trait solver when normalizing that self type.
This PR distinguishes these two because I often want to only grep for one of them. Namely, let's call it `with_replaced_self_ty` when all we're doing is replacing the self type.
expand WF obligations when checking method calls
Don't wrap a bunch of signatures in `FnPtr` then check their WF; instead, check the WFness of each input/output separately.
This is useful for the new trait solver, since because we stall on root obligations we end up needing to repeatedly recompute the WFness of possibly very large function signature types if it ends up bottoming out in ambiguity.
This may also give us more chances to hit the WF fast path for certain types like built-ins.
Finally, this just seems conceptually correct to do. There's nothing conceptually that suggests that wrapping the function signature in an fn pointer makes sense at all to do; I'm guessing that it was just convenient so that we didn't have to register WF obligations in a loop, but it doesn't affect the readability of this code at all.
Improve formatting of doc code blocks
We don't currently apply automatic formatting to doc comment code blocks. As a
result, it has built up various idiosyncracies, which make such automatic
formatting difficult. Some of those idiosyncracies also make things harder for
human readers or other tools.
This PR makes a few improvements to doc code formatting, in the hopes of making
future automatic formatting easier, as well as in many cases providing net
readability improvements.
I would suggest reading each commit separately, as each commit contains one
class of changes.
Currently there is `Ty` and `BoundTy`, and `Region` and `BoundRegion`,
and `Const` and... `BoundVar`. An annoying inconsistency.
This commit repurposes the existing `BoundConst`, which was barely used,
so it's the partner to `Const`. Unlike `BoundTy`/`BoundRegion` it lacks
a `kind` field but it's still nice to have because it makes the const
code more similar to the ty/region code everywhere.
The commit also removes `impl From<BoundVar> for BoundTy`, which has a
single use and doesn't seem worth it.
These changes fix the "FIXME: We really should have a separate
`BoundConst` for consts".
Because doc code does not get automatically formatted, some doc code has
creative placements of comments that automatic formatting can't handle.
Reformat those comments to make the resulting code support standard Rust
formatting without breaking; this is generally an improvement to
readability as well.
Some comments are not indented to the prevailing indent, and are instead
aligned under some bit of code. Indent them to the prevailing indent,
and put spaces *inside* the comments to align them with code.
Some comments span several lines of code (which aren't the line the
comment is about) and expect alignment. Reformat them into one comment
not broken up by unrelated intervening code.
Some comments are placed on the same line as an opening brace, placing
them effectively inside the subsequent block, such that formatting would
typically format them like a line of that block. Move those comments to
attach them to what they apply to.
Some comments are placed on the same line as a one-line braced block,
effectively attaching them to the closing brace, even though they're
about the code inside the block. Reformat to make sure the comment will
stay on the same line as the code it's commenting.
We lost the following comment during refactorings:
The current code for niche-filling relies on variant indices instead of actual discriminants, so enums with explicit discriminants (RFC 2363) would misbehave.
