Allow references to interior mutable data behind a feature gate
supercedes #80373 by simply not checking for interior mutability on borrows of locals that have `StorageDead` and thus can never be leaked to the final value of the constant
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80384
r? `@RalfJung`
Some Promotion Refactoring
Clean up promotion a bit:
* factor out some common code
* more exhaustive matches
This *should* not break anything... the only potentially-breaking change is that `BorrowKind::Shallow | BorrowKind::Unique` are now rejected for internal references.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #80185 (Fix ICE when pointing at multi bytes character)
- #80260 (slightly more typed interface to panic implementation)
- #80311 (Improvements to NatVis support)
- #80337 (Use `desc` as a doc-comment for queries if there are no doc comments)
- #80381 (Revert "Cleanup markdown span handling")
- #80492 (remove empty wraps, don't return Results from from infallible functions)
- #80509 (where possible, pass slices instead of &Vec or &String (clippy::ptr_arg))
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
validate promoteds
Turn on const-value validation for promoteds. This is made possible now that https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67534 is resolved.
I don't think this is a breaking change. We don't promote any unsafe operation any more (since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77526 landed). We *do* promote `const fn` calls under some circumstances (in `const`/`static` initializers), but union field access and similar operations are not allowed in `const fn`. So now is a perfect time to add this check. :D
r? `@oli-obk`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67465
Remap instrument-coverage line numbers in doctests
This uses the `SourceMap::doctest_offset_line` method to re-map line
numbers from doctests. Remapping columns is not yet done, and rustdoc
still does not output the correct filename when running doctests in a
workspace.
Part of #79417 although I dont consider that fixed until both filenames
and columns are mapped correctly.
r? `@richkadel`
I might jump on zulip the comming days. Still need to figure out how to properly write tests for this, and deal with other doctest issues in the meantime.
Acknowledge that `[CONST; N]` is stable
When `const_in_array_repeat_expressions` (RFC 2203) got unstably implemented as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61749, accidentally, the special case of repeating a *constant* got stabilized immediately. That is why the following code works on stable:
```rust
const EMPTY: Vec<i32> = Vec::new();
pub const fn bar() -> [Vec<i32>; 2] {
[EMPTY; 2]
}
fn main() {
let x = bar();
}
```
In contrast, if we had written `[expr; 2]` for some expression that is not *literally* a constant but could be evaluated at compile-time (e.g. `(EMPTY,).0`), this would have failed.
We could take back this stabilization as it was clearly accidental. However, I propose we instead just officially accept this and stabilize a small subset of RFC 2203, while leaving the more complex case of general expressions that could be evaluated at compile-time unstable. Making that case work well is pretty much blocked on inline `const` expressions (to avoid relying too much on [implicit promotion](https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval/blob/master/promotion.md)), so it could take a bit until it comes to full fruition. `[CONST; N]` is an uncontroversial subset of this feature that has no semantic ambiguities, does not rely on promotion, and basically provides the full expressive power of RFC 2203 but without the convenience (people have to define constants to repeat them, possibly using associated consts if generics are involved).
Well, I said "no semantic ambiguities", that is only almost true... the one point I am not sure about is `[CONST; 0]`. There are two possible behaviors here: either this is equivalent to `let x = CONST; [x; 0]`, or it is a NOP (if we argue that the constant is never actually instantiated). The difference between the two is that if `CONST` has a destructor, it should run in the former case (but currently doesn't, due to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74836); but should not run if it is considered a NOP. For regular `[x; 0]` there seems to be consensus on running drop (there isn't really an alternative); any opinions for the `CONST` special case? Should this instantiate the const only to immediately run its destructors? That seems somewhat silly to me. After all, the `let`-expansion does *not* work in general, for `N > 1`.
Cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval`
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49147
Make BoundRegion have a kind of BoungRegionKind
Split from #76814
Also includes making `replace_escaping_bound_vars` only return `T`
Going to r? `@lcnr`
Feel free to reassign
