Upgrades the coverage map to Version 4
Changes the coverage map injected into binaries compiled with
`-Zinstrument-coverage` to LLVM Coverage Mapping Format, Version 4 (from
Version 3). Note, binaries compiled with this version will require LLVM
tools from at least LLVM Version 11.
r? ``@wesleywiser``
Validate use of parameters in naked functions
* Reject use of parameters inside naked function body.
* Reject use of patterns inside function parameters, to emphasize role
of parameters a signature declaration (mirroring existing behaviour
for function declarations) and avoid generating code introducing
specified bindings.
Closes issues below by considering input to be ill-formed.
Closes#75922.
Closes#77848.
Closes#79350.
Rename `optin_builtin_traits` to `auto_traits`
They were originally called "opt-in, built-in traits" (OIBITs), but
people realized that the name was too confusing and a mouthful, and so
they were renamed to just "auto traits". The feature flag's name wasn't
updated, though, so that's what this PR does.
There are some other spots in the compiler that still refer to OIBITs,
but I don't think changing those now is worth it since they are internal
and not particularly relevant to this PR.
Also see <https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/opt-in.2C.20built-in.20traits.20(auto.20traits).20feature.20name>.
r? `@oli-obk` (feel free to re-assign if you're not the right reviewer for this)
* Reject use of parameters inside naked function body.
* Reject use of patterns inside function parameters, to emphasize role
of parameters a signature declaration (mirroring existing behaviour
for function declarations) and avoid generating code introducing
specified bindings.
Use Option::map instead of open coding it
r? `@jonas-schievink` since you're frequently sniping these minor cleanups anyway.
`@rustbot` modify labels +C-cleanup +T-compiler
Allow using generic trait methods in `const fn`
Next step for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67792, this now also allows code like the following:
```rust
struct S;
impl const PartialEq for S {
fn eq(&self, _: &S) -> bool {
true
}
}
const fn equals_self<T: PartialEq>(t: &T) -> bool {
*t == *t
}
pub const EQ: bool = equals_self(&S);
```
This works by threading const-ness of trait predicates through trait selection, in particular through `ParamCandidate`, and exposing it in the resulting `ImplSource`.
Since this change makes two bounds `T: Trait` and `T: ?const Trait` that only differ in their const-ness be treated like different bounds, candidate winnowing has been changed to drop the `?const` candidate in favor of the const candidate, to avoid ambiguities when both a const and a non-const bound is present.
It is applied exactly when the return value has an indirect pass mode.
Except for InReg on x86 fastcall, arg attrs are now only used for
optimization purposes and thus are fine to ignore.
type is too big -> values of the type are too big
strictly speaking, `[u8; usize::MAX]` or even `[[[u128; usize::MAX]; usize::MAX]; usize::MAX]` are absolutely fine types as long as you don't try to deal with any values of it.
This error message seems to cause some confusion imo, for example in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79135#issuecomment-729361380 so I would prefer us to be more precise here.
See the added test case which uses one of these types without causing an error.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Introduce `TypeVisitor::BreakTy`
Implements MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#383.
r? `@ghost`
cc `@lcnr` `@oli-obk`
~~Blocked on FCP in rust-lang/compiler-team#383.~~
RFC-2229: Implement Precise Capture Analysis
### This PR introduces
- Feature gate for RFC-2229 (incomplete) `capture_disjoint_field`
- Rustc Attribute to print out the capture analysis `rustc_capture_analysis`
- Precise capture analysis
### Description of the analysis
1. If the feature gate is not set then all variables that are not local to the closure will be added to the list of captures. (This is for backcompat)
2. The rest of the analysis is based entirely on how the captured `Place`s are used within the closure. Precise information (i.e. projections) about the `Place` is maintained throughout.
3. To reduce the amount of information we need to keep track of, we do a minimization step. In this step, we determine a list such that no Place within this list represents an ancestor path to another entry in the list. Check rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#9 for more detailed examples.
4. To keep the compiler functional as before we implement a Bridge between the results of this new analysis to existing data structures used for closure captures. Note the new capture analysis results are only part of MaybeTypeckTables that is the information is only available during typeck-ing.
### Known issues
- Statements like `let _ = x` will make the compiler ICE when used within a closure with the feature enabled. More generally speaking the issue is caused by `let` statements that create no bindings and are init'ed using a Place expression.
### Testing
We removed the code that would handle the case where the feature gate is not set, to enable the feature as default and did a bors try and perf run. More information here: #78762
### Thanks
This has been slowly in the works for a while now.
I want to call out `@Azhng` `@ChrisPardy` `@null-sleep` `@jenniferwills` `@logmosier` `@roxelo` for working on this and the previous PRs that led up to this, `@nikomatsakis` for guiding us.
Closesrust-lang/project-rfc-2229#7Closesrust-lang/project-rfc-2229#9Closesrust-lang/project-rfc-2229#6Closesrust-lang/project-rfc-2229#19
r? `@nikomatsakis`
add error_occured field to ConstQualifs,
fix#76064
I wasn't sure what `in_return_place` actually did and not sure why it returns `ConstQualifs` while it's sibling functions return `bool`. So I tried to make as minimal changes to the structure as possible. Please point out whether I have to refactor it or not.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@RalfJung`
