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

Allow Abort terminators in all const-contexts #77512

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Oct 5, 2020

Conversation

ecstatic-morse
Copy link
Contributor

@ecstatic-morse ecstatic-morse commented Oct 3, 2020

We never unwind during const-eval, so we basically have these semantics already. Also I just figured out that these only appear along the cleanup path, which doesn't get const-checked. In other words, this doesn't actually change behavior: the check-pass test I added compiles just fine on nightly.

r? @RalfJung
cc @rust-lang/wg-const-eval

These appear along the cleanup path inside functions with
`#[unwind(aborts)]`. We don't const-check the cleanup path anyways,
since const-eval already has "abort-on-panic" semantics and there's
often drops that would otherwise be forbidden, so the check wasn't
really preventing anything anyways.
@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Oct 3, 2020
@ecstatic-morse ecstatic-morse force-pushed the const-checking-allow-abort branch 2 times, most recently from 61f1f00 to c412c30 Compare October 3, 2020 23:00

TerminatorKind::GeneratorDrop | TerminatorKind::Yield { .. } => {
self.check_op(ops::Generator(hir::GeneratorKind::Gen))
}

TerminatorKind::Assert { .. }
TerminatorKind::Abort
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe add a comment here saying that Abort terminators are only used for #[unwind(aborts)] and since CTFE does not unwind, they are thus unreachable?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I could just span_bug here actually. AFAICT, there are only Aborts in "cleanup" blocks.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That sounds like a good idea but does not replace a comment. :)


#![feature(unwind_attributes, const_panic)]

// `#[unwind(aborts)]` is okay for a `const fn`. We don't unwind in const-eval anyways.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why did you add two tests? Our test suite is already huge.^^

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One is check-pass, the other fails to compile.

Copy link
Member

@RalfJung RalfJung Oct 4, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can see that, I just do not understand their respective purpose. Specifically, "consts/unwind-abort" does not even run any CTFE, and the other test already checks that the Abort terminator is accepted.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🤷 I'm happy with the test coverage in this PR.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am trying to understand what unwind-abort.rs tests that the other test does not already cover.

My concern is not too little coverage; my concern is unnecessarily growing the number of UI tests.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I try to split up passing and failing tests when possible. One is solely a test of const-checking and involves no const-eval, the other is a sanity check to ensure that the CTFE engine doesn't do anything weird when evaluating something with #[unwind(aborts)].

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this unnecessarily leads to an excessive number of tests in our UI test suite that is already so big that it becomes hard to run the entire thing, but whatever.

Could you add comments to these tests explaining what they are meant to test?

Co-authored-by: Ralf Jung <post@ralfj.de>
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

RalfJung commented Oct 4, 2020

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 4, 2020

📌 Commit 6ae1da3 has been approved by RalfJung

@bors 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 Oct 4, 2020
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 5, 2020
Rollup of 11 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#75853 (Use more intra-doc-links in `core::fmt`)
 - rust-lang#75928 (Remove trait_selection error message in specific case)
 - rust-lang#76329 (Add check for doc alias attribute at crate level)
 - rust-lang#77219 (core::global_allocator docs link to std::alloc::GlobalAlloc)
 - rust-lang#77395 (BTreeMap: admit the existence of leaf edges in comments)
 - rust-lang#77407 (Improve build-manifest to work with the improved promote-release)
 - rust-lang#77426 (Include scope id in SocketAddrV6::Display)
 - rust-lang#77439 (Fix missing diagnostic span for `impl Trait` with const generics, and add various tests for `min_const_generics` and `const_generics`)
 - rust-lang#77471 (BTreeMap: refactoring around edges, missed spots)
 - rust-lang#77512 (Allow `Abort` terminators in all const-contexts)
 - rust-lang#77514 (Replace some once(x).chain(once(y)) with [x, y] IntoIter)

Failed merges:

r? `@ghost`
@bors bors merged commit 5fbb411 into rust-lang:master Oct 5, 2020
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.49.0 milestone Oct 5, 2020
@ecstatic-morse ecstatic-morse deleted the const-checking-allow-abort branch October 6, 2020 01:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants