Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

remove Subtype projections #133258

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

remove Subtype projections #133258

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

@lcnr lcnr commented Nov 20, 2024

cc #112651 closes #118478

see #112651 (comment) for the reasoning behind this change

r? types

@rustbot 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. labels Nov 20, 2024
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Nov 20, 2024

Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri interpreter

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes occurred to the CTFE machinery

cc @rust-lang/wg-const-eval

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations

cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt

This PR changes MIR

cc @oli-obk, @RalfJung, @JakobDegen, @davidtwco, @celinval, @vakaras

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift

cc @bjorn3

This PR changes Stable MIR

cc @oli-obk, @celinval, @ouz-a

@@ -114,7 +114,6 @@ impl<'tcx, M: Machine<'tcx>> FnAbiOfHelpers<'tcx> for InterpCx<'tcx, M> {
}

/// Test if it is valid for a MIR assignment to assign `src`-typed place to `dest`-typed value.
/// This test should be symmetric, as it is primarily about layout compatibility.
pub(super) fn mir_assign_valid_types<'tcx>(
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we check for subtyping here which is not symmetric, so either this comment is wrong or the impl is. I would be open to alternative change this to try subtyping in either direction 🤷 but given that this already uses src and dest and the behavior is preexisting, this comment is not relied on rn

Copy link
Member

@RalfJung RalfJung Nov 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I originally made the check symmetric since I didn't want to think about which direction it has to be. 😂 So it might be worth checking that all users of this function use it correctly.

I also find the comment extremely confusing. When doing an assignment, dest is a place and src is a value! So what is going on here?
What I expect is a comment like this:

/// Test if it is valid for a MIR assignment to store a `src`-typed value in a `dest`-typed place.

But I am not sure if that matches the implementation, or the users...

Copy link
Member

@RalfJung RalfJung Nov 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Apparently I wrote that comment. Unfortunately I can't explain what I meant...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah, it should be src-typed value and dest-typed place 😁

.filter(|elem| !matches!(elem, ProjectionElem::OpaqueCast(_)))
.collect::<Vec<_>>(),
);

self.super_place(place, _context, _location);
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

while I don't fully understand in which cases we don't emit an OpaqueCast even though the type of a projection contains an opaque, it apparently can happen 🤔

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yea there are bugs here. The system is fragile and I haven't been able to come up with sth better, so without redoing projections from scratch, it may be best to just forbid projecting into opaques. I wanted to so that originally, but there was pushback saying some stuff should compile

@@ -682,20 +674,13 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> Visitor<'tcx> for TypeChecker<'a, 'tcx> {
}
};

let kind = match parent_ty.ty.kind() {
&ty::Alias(ty::Opaque, ty::AliasTy { def_id, args, .. }) => {
self.tcx.type_of(def_id).instantiate(self.tcx, args).kind()
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

very much incorrect in case the type of an opaque is either not normalized with these args or yet another opaque :3

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

see #112651 (comment) for the reasoning behind this change

There you said we'd need explicit types in some places, replacing these projections. (Specifically, casts and calls.) How can this PR work without adding those explicit types?

@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor Author

lcnr commented Nov 20, 2024

see #112651 (comment) for the reasoning behind this change

There you said we'd need explicit types in some places, replacing these projections. (Specifically, casts and calls.) How can this PR work without adding those explicit types?

we currently still prevent optimizations from dropping assignments causing subtyping, as the subtype projections were never enough to actually fix the unsoundness

so rn the fix for the unsoundness is: make sure no optimization merges locals which are subtypes of each other

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

so rn the fix for the unsoundness is: make sure no optimization merges locals which are subtypes of each other

Okay. That sounds fragile, I guess #112651 is tracking the improvement of that situation?

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

@rustbot author

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 21, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 23, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #133242) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

ICE regression when removing ProjectionElem::Subtype
7 participants