MGCA: Support struct expressions without intermediary anon consts

[BoxyUwU]

r? oli-obk

tracking issue: #13298

High level goal

Under feature(min_generic_const_args) this PR adds another kind of const argument. A struct/variant construction const arg kind. We represent the values of the fields as themselves being const arguments which allows for uses of generic parameters subject to the existing restrictions present in min_generic_const_args:

fn foo<const N: Option<u32>>() {} trait Trait { #[type_const] const ASSOC: usize; } fn bar<T: Trait, const N: u32>() { // the initializer of `_0` is a `N` which is a legal const argument // so this is ok. foo::<{ Some::<u32> { 0: N } }>(); // this is allowed as mgca supports uses of assoc consts in the // type system. ie `<T as Trait>::ASSOC` is a legal const argument foo::<{ Some::<u32> { 0: <T as Trait>::ASSOC } }>(); // this on the other hand is not allowed as `N + 1` is not a legal // const argument foo::<{ Some::<u32> { 0: N + 1 } }>(); }

This PR does not support uses of const ctors, e.g. None. And also does not support tuple constructors, e.g. Some(N). I believe that it would not be difficult to add support for such functionality after this PR lands so have left it out deliberately.

We currently require that all generic parameters on the type being constructed be explicitly specified. I haven't really looked into why that is but it doesn't seem desirable to me as it should be legal to write Some { ... } in a const argument inside of a body and have that desugar to Some::<_> { ... }. Regardless this can definitely be a follow-up PR and I assume this is some underlying consistency with the way that elided args are handled with type paths elsewhere.

This PRs implementation of supporting struct expressions is quite buggy/ICEy/incomplete. Just looking at the ty lowering logic there's immediately a bunch of panic spots where we should emit proper errors. We also don't handle Foo { ..expr } correctly (ie at all). The printing of ConstArgKind::Struct HIR nodes doesn't really exist either :')

I've tried to keep the implementation here somewhat deliberately incomplete as I think a number of these issues are actually quite small and self contained after this PR lands and I'm hoping it could be a good set of issues to mentor newer contributors on 🤔 I just wanted the "bare minimum" required to actually demonstrate that the previous changes are "necessary".

ValTree now recurse through ty::Const

In order to actually represent struct/variant construction in ty::Const without going through an anon const we would need to introduce some new ConstKind variant. Let's say some hypothetical ConstKind::ADT(Ty<'tcx>, List<Const<'tcx>>).

This variant would represent things the same way that ValTree does with the first element representing the VariantIdx of the enum (if its an enum), and then followed by a list of field values in definition order.

This could work but there are a few reasons why it's suboptimal.

First it would mean we have a second kind of Const that can be normalized. Right now we only have ConstKind::Unevaluated which possibly needs normalization. Similarly with TyKind we only have TyKind::Alias. If we introduced ConstKind::ADT it would need to be normalized to a ConstKind::Value eventually. This feels to me like it has the potential to cause bugs in the long run where only ConstKind::Unevaluated is handled by some code paths.

Secondly it would make type equality/inference be kind of... weird... It's desirable for Some { 0: ?x } eq Some { 0: 1_u32 } to result in ?x=1_u32. I can't see a way for this to work with this ConstKind::ADT design under the current architecture for how we represent types/consts and generally do equality operations.

We would need to wholly special case these two variants in type equality and have a custom recursive walker separate from the existing architecture for doing type equality. It would also be somewhat unique in that it's a non-rigid ty::Const (it can be normalized more later on in type inference) while also having somewhat "structural" equality behaviour.

Lastly, it's worth noting that its not actually ConstKind::ADT that we want. It's desirable to extend this setup to also support tuples and arrays, or even references if we wind up supporting those in const generics. Therefore this isn't really ConstKind::ADT but a more general ConstKind::ShallowValue or something to that effect. It represents at least one "layer" of a types value :')

Instead of doing this implementation choice we instead change ValTree::Branch:

enum ValTree<'tcx> { Leaf(ScalarInt), // Before this PR: Branch(Box<[ValTree<'tcx>]>), // After this PR Branch(Box<[Const<'tcx>]>), }

The representation for so called "shallow values" is now the same as the representation for the entire full value. The desired inference/type equality behaviour just falls right out of this. We also don't wind up with these shallow values actually being non-rigid. And ValTree already supports references/tuples/arrays so we can handle those just fine.

I think in the future it might be worth considering inlining ValTree into ty::ConstKind. E.g:

enum ConstKind { Scalar(Ty<'tcx>, ScalarInt), ShallowValue(Ty<'tcx>, List<Const<'tcx>>), Unevaluated(UnevaluatedConst<'tcx>), ... }

This would imply that the usage of ValTrees in patterns would now be using ty::Const but they already kind of are anyway and I think that's probably okay in the long run. It also would mean that the set of things we could represent in const patterns is greater which may be desirable in the long run for supporting things such as const patterns of const generic parameters.

Regardless, this PR doesn't actually inline ValTree into ty::ConstKind, it only changes Branch to recurse through Const. This change could be split out of this PR if desired.

I'm not sure if there'll be a perf impact from this change. It's somewhat plausible as now all const pattern values that have nesting will be interning a lot more Tys. We shall see :>

Forbidding generic parameters under mgca

Under mgca we now allow all const arguments to resolve paths to generic parameters. We then later actually validate that the const arg should be allowed to access generic parameters if it did wind up resolving to any.

This winds up just being a lot simpler to implement than trying to make name resolution "keep track" of whether we're inside of a non-anon-const const arg and then encounter a const { ... } indicating we should now stop allowing resolving to generic parameters.

It's also somewhat in line with what we'll need for a feature(generic_const_args) where we'll want to decide whether an anon const should have any generic parameters based off syntactically whether any generic parameters were used. Though that design is entirely hypothetical at this point :)

[rustbot]

oli-obk is not on the review rotation at the moment.
They may take a while to respond.

[BoxyUwU]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[BoxyUwU]

the addition of all the .to_value().valtree everywhere is kind of unfortunate

[BoxyUwU]

same with all the extra calls to ty::Const::new_x

[BoxyUwU]

need to add some tests into this commit, pretty much any of the example code ive written for showing the PR to people 😆

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: eeb4682 (eeb4682d365158169a665813e65ad6eabb62448b, parent: d2f887349fe3ea079a4f89b020ce6df1993e1e06)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (eeb4682): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.7%]	18
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.4%	[0.1%, 0.7%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.5%, -0.1%]	9
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.7%]	18

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.2%, secondary 1.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[1.0%, 1.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.0%	[1.0%, 1.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[1.0%, 1.4%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -0.1%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-3.2%, -3.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 474.035s -> 472.627s (-0.30%)
Artifact size: 388.78 MiB -> 388.92 MiB (0.04%)

[BoxyUwU]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[BoxyUwU]

@bors try cancel

[rust-bors]

Try build cancelled. Cancelled workflows:

• https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/19527896893

[BoxyUwU]

@bors try

[rust-bors]

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: 5d5bf97 (5d5bf97bb90dcbb0a21af42d4606cf425202cc06, parent: d2f887349fe3ea079a4f89b020ce6df1993e1e06)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5d5bf97): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read the text below

Benchmarking this pull request means it may be perf-sensitive – we'll automatically label it not fit for rolling up. You can override this, but we strongly advise not to, due to possible changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please do so in sufficient writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If its results are neutral or positive, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.5%]	12
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.6%, -0.1%]	11
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.1%, 0.5%]	12

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.0%, secondary -0.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.0%	[0.8%, 1.2%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.9%	[0.9%, 0.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-5.1%	[-5.1%, -5.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.6%	[-2.3%, -0.9%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-5.1%, 1.2%]	3

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[2.4%, 3.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 474.035s -> 474.013s (-0.00%)
Artifact size: 388.78 MiB -> 388.92 MiB (0.04%)

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #149351) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job pr-check-2 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

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

 Checking rustc_passes v0.0.0 (/checkout/compiler/rustc_passes) error: this could be rewritten as `let...else` --> compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/hir_ty_lowering/mod.rs:2277:25 | 2277 | / let variant_did = match path.res { 2278 | | Res::Def(DefKind::Variant | DefKind::Struct, did) => did, 2279 | | _ => todo!(), 2280 | | }; | |__________________________^ help: consider writing: `let Res::Def(DefKind::Variant | DefKind::Struct, variant_did) = path.res else { todo!() };` | = help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#manual_let_else note: the lint level is defined here --> compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/lib.rs:62:9 | 62 | #![deny(clippy::manual_let_else)] | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ error: this could be rewritten as `let...else` --> compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/hir_ty_lowering/mod.rs:2306:17 | 2306 | / let (adt_def, adt_args) = match ty.kind() { 2307 | | ty::Adt(adt_def, args) => (adt_def, args), 2308 | | _ => todo!(), 2309 | | }; | |__________________^ help: consider writing: `let ty::Adt(adt_def, adt_args) = ty.kind() else { todo!() };` | = help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#manual_let_else [RUSTC-TIMING] rustc_hir_analysis test:false 14.129 error: could not compile `rustc_hir_analysis` (lib) due to 2 previous errors