Implement `~const Destruct` effect goal in the new solver #132329

compiler-errors · 2024-10-29T20:16:05Z

This also fixed a subtle bug/limitation of the NeedsConstDrop check. Specifically, the "Qualif" API basically treats const drops as totally structural, even though dropping something that has an explicit Drop implementation cannot be structurally decomposed. For example:

#![feature(const_trait_impl)]

#[const_trait] trait Foo {
    fn foo();
}

struct Conditional<T: Foo>(T);

impl Foo for () {
    fn foo() {
        println!("uh oh");
    }
}

impl<T> const Drop for Conditional<T> where T: ~const Foo {
    fn drop(&mut self) {
        T::foo();
    }
}

const FOO: () = {
    let _ = Conditional(());
    //~^ This should error.
};

fn main() {}

In this example, when checking if the Conditional(()) rvalue is const-drop, since Conditional has a const destructor, we would previously recurse into the () value and determine it has nothing to drop, which means that it is considered to not need a const drop -- even though dropping Conditional(()) would mean evaluating the destructor which relies on that T: const Foo bound to hold!

This could be fixed alternatively by banning any const conditions on const Drop impls, but that really sucks -- that means that basically no interesting const drop impls could be written. We have the capability to totally and intuitively support the right behavior, which I've implemented here.

bors · 2024-10-31T13:49:13Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #132301) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

bors · 2024-11-03T23:09:10Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #132479) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

compiler-errors · 2024-11-08T19:27:13Z

r? @lcnr

I know you don't typically review this const stuff, but it's touching the new solver so I know you may want to review this.

also cc @RalfJung: are you familiar with the existing implementation of the Qualif system in compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/check_consts/qualifs.rs? I reworked it to fix a bug in the const drop checking implementation, but I wanted to know if you had any strong opinions about the approach.

rustbot · 2024-11-08T19:27:16Z

Some changes occurred to the CTFE machinery

cc @rust-lang/wg-const-eval

compiler-errors · 2024-11-08T20:27:26Z

compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/solve/effect_goals.rs

+        let cx = ecx.cx();
+
+        let self_ty = goal.predicate.self_ty();
+        let (tupled_inputs_and_output, def_id, args) = match self_ty.kind() {


We're not reusing the helper from structural_traits b/c we specifically want to extract a DefId here too.

I guess alternatively we could pass back an Option<DefId> from that helper and bail if it's None (i.e. a FnPtr), then do the const check afterwards.

compiler-errors · 2024-11-08T20:57:05Z

compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/solve/effect_goals.rs

+
+        let self_ty = goal.predicate.self_ty();
+
+        let const_conditions = match self_ty.kind() {


I could possibly uplift this to structural traits module too, I guess

RalfJung · 2024-11-09T08:19:01Z

are you familiar with the existing implementation of the Qualif system in compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/check_consts/qualifs.rs?

I've seen it before but I am not very familiar with it, no...

RalfJung · 2024-11-09T08:20:47Z

This also fixed a subtle bug/limitation of the NeedsConstDrop check. Specifically, the "Qualif" API basically treats const drops as totally structural, even though dropping something that has an explicit Drop implementation cannot be structurally decomposed

The Qualif API lets you do structural propagation of obligations but it also lets you "overwrite" that. So this sounds like just a plain bug in how the Qualif API is used. Probably because that code was written before const Drop was a thing.

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/check_consts/qualifs.rs

RalfJung · 2024-11-09T08:25:00Z

the NeedsConstDrop check

There is no such qualif? I assume you mean NeedsNonConstDrop?

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/check_consts/qualifs.rs

compiler-errors · 2024-11-12T21:09:36Z

Firstly, the last commit is incomplete (needs a new feature gate). I just wanted to get it vibe-checked before fixing it up, since it's kinda tedious.

compiler-errors · 2024-11-12T21:12:24Z

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/check_consts/post_drop_elaboration.rs

+                // I know it's not great to be creating a new const checker, but I'd
+                // rather use it so we can deduplicate the error emitting logic that
+                // it contains.
+                Checker::new(self.ccx).check_op_spanned_post(


Notably, I didn't want to recreate all of the logic having to do with conditional gating, so I create a new ConstChecker right here and immediately call check_op. That's kinda gross, I know; I guess I could alternatively abstract out the error reporting part? No strong opinion.

The point is that before this commit, I don't believe we were respecting feature gating or miri-unleashed properly with const_precise_live_drops enabled.

Yeah, this entire separate pass is kind of a hack. This seems fine. Actually ideally we'd deduplicate this entire logic (first checking qualifs.needs_drop, then checking qualifs.needs_non_const_drop, then calling check_op_spanned) -- is that reasonably possible?

Yeah, I can deduplicate the logic.

Also, we don't need this _post function. I added it because I wanted to assert we were not registering any secondary diagnostics on this path, but we already delay a span bug if we do.

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/check_consts/qualifs.rs

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/check_consts/check.rs

RalfJung · 2024-11-14T06:38:24Z

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/check_consts/post_drop_elaboration.rs

+                // I know it's not great to be creating a new const checker, but I'd
+                // rather use it so we can deduplicate the error emitting logic that
+                // it contains.
+                Checker::new(self.ccx).check_op_spanned_post(


Yeah, this entire separate pass is kind of a hack. This seems fine. Actually ideally we'd deduplicate this entire logic (first checking qualifs.needs_drop, then checking qualifs.needs_non_const_drop, then calling check_op_spanned) -- is that reasonably possible?

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/check_consts/qualifs.rs

RalfJung · 2024-11-14T06:43:25Z

Firstly, the last commit is incomplete (needs a new feature gate). I just wanted to get it vibe-checked before fixing it up, since it's kinda tedious.

I like the vibes! We'll only really see whether it behaves as expected once the tests are adjusted, but the code matches what I expect. I hope it makes sense to you as well? Definitely let me know if you think I am asking for something weird here. :)

…live_drops post-drop-elaboration check

compiler-errors · 2024-11-22T17:17:42Z

@bors r=lcnr

bors · 2024-11-22T17:17:45Z

📌 Commit 69a38de has been approved by lcnr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2024-11-22T19:22:56Z

⌛ Testing commit 69a38de with merge 1dd4a02...

rust-log-analyzer · 2024-11-22T21:14:42Z

The job x86_64-gnu-aux failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

bors · 2024-11-22T21:16:28Z

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

compiler-errors · 2024-11-22T21:17:33Z

spurious?

compiler-errors · 2024-11-22T21:29:35Z

@bors retry

this looks like some spurious miri crash ive seen in the past

bors · 2024-11-23T02:03:53Z

⌛ Testing commit 69a38de with merge 743003b...

bors · 2024-11-23T04:43:19Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lcnr
Pushing 743003b to master...

rust-timer · 2024-11-23T07:13:31Z

Finished benchmarking commit (743003b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.1%	[1.0%, 1.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[1.0%, 1.2%]	2

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.1%, secondary -3.4%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.4%	[-3.4%, -3.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.1%	[2.1%, 2.1%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.4%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 794.975s -> 795.253s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 336.16 MiB -> 336.22 MiB (0.02%)

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver) labels Oct 29, 2024

compiler-errors force-pushed the fn-and-destruct branch from 861399d to 242dd91 Compare October 31, 2024 17:53

compiler-errors force-pushed the fn-and-destruct branch 2 times, most recently from e0730c9 to 313877d Compare November 8, 2024 19:24

compiler-errors marked this pull request as ready for review November 8, 2024 19:27

rustbot assigned lcnr Nov 8, 2024

compiler-errors commented Nov 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

RalfJung reviewed Nov 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/check_consts/qualifs.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

RalfJung reviewed Nov 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/check_consts/qualifs.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

RalfJung reviewed Nov 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

compiler-errors force-pushed the fn-and-destruct branch 2 times, most recently from 8ceb8c2 to 6ab6f74 Compare November 12, 2024 21:09

compiler-errors commented Nov 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

RalfJung reviewed Nov 14, 2024

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/check_consts/qualifs.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

RalfJung reviewed Nov 14, 2024

View reviewed changes

compiler-errors mentioned this pull request Nov 19, 2024

Tracking Issue for const_destruct #133214

Open

3 tasks

compiler-errors force-pushed the fn-and-destruct branch from 6ab6f74 to 6884fb4 Compare November 19, 2024 17:25

compiler-errors mentioned this pull request Nov 19, 2024

Implement ~const Fn trait goal in the new solver #133216

Merged

compiler-errors added 2 commits November 22, 2024 16:54

Gate const drop behind const_destruct feature, and fix const_precise_…

2088260

…live_drops post-drop-elaboration check

Deduplicate checking drop terminator

af0d566

compiler-errors force-pushed the fn-and-destruct branch 2 times, most recently from 2423525 to 6c92c33 Compare November 22, 2024 16:58

Check drop is trivial before checking ty needs drop

69a38de

compiler-errors force-pushed the fn-and-destruct branch from 6c92c33 to 69a38de Compare November 22, 2024 17:01

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 22, 2024

bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Nov 22, 2024

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 22, 2024

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Nov 23, 2024

bors merged commit 743003b into rust-lang:master Nov 23, 2024
7 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.85.0 milestone Nov 23, 2024

bors mentioned this pull request Nov 23, 2024

finish Reveal removal #133242

Merged


		let self_ty = goal.predicate.self_ty();

		let const_conditions = match self_ty.kind() {

Implement ~const Destruct effect goal in the new solver #132329

Implement ~const Destruct effect goal in the new solver #132329

Uh oh!

Conversation

compiler-errors commented Oct 29, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

bors commented Oct 31, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 3, 2024

Uh oh!

compiler-errors commented Nov 8, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Nov 8, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

RalfJung commented Nov 9, 2024

Uh oh!

RalfJung commented Nov 9, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RalfJung commented Nov 9, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

compiler-errors commented Nov 12, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

RalfJung Nov 14, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RalfJung Nov 14, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RalfJung commented Nov 14, 2024

Uh oh!

compiler-errors commented Nov 22, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 22, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 22, 2024

Uh oh!

rust-log-analyzer commented Nov 22, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 22, 2024

Uh oh!

compiler-errors commented Nov 22, 2024

Uh oh!

compiler-errors commented Nov 22, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 23, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 23, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Nov 23, 2024

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Implement `~const Destruct` effect goal in the new solver #132329

Implement `~const Destruct` effect goal in the new solver #132329

compiler-errors commented Oct 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

compiler-errors commented Nov 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

RalfJung Nov 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading

RalfJung Nov 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading