Implement the unsafe-fields RFC. #132915

veluca93 · 2024-11-11T18:25:19Z

RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#3458

Tracking:

Tracking issue for RFC 3458: Unsafe fields #132922

r? jswrenn

rustbot · 2024-11-11T18:25:29Z

Some changes occurred in src/tools/rustfmt

cc @rust-lang/rustfmt

rustbot · 2024-11-11T19:20:45Z

Changes to the size of AST and/or HIR nodes.

cc @nnethercote

jswrenn

Thanks for implementing this! Here's a first round of comments. :-)

compiler/rustc_feature/src/unstable.rs

compiler/rustc_metadata/src/rmeta/encoder.rs

compiler/rustc_mir_build/src/check_unsafety.rs

compiler/rustc_feature/src/unstable.rs

jswrenn · 2024-11-12T17:24:09Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

Draft implementation of unsafe-fields. RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#3458 Tracking: - rust-lang#132922 r? jswrenn

bors · 2024-11-12T17:25:21Z

⌛ Trying commit db32d80 with merge ce25ffa...

bors · 2024-11-12T19:09:46Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: ce25ffa (ce25ffa95be3a8577d9d1ff09eafe449df2dcfc3)

rust-timer · 2024-11-12T20:36:56Z

Finished benchmarking commit (ce25ffa): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.7%)

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)	1.8%	[1.8%, 1.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-3.1%, 1.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 1.7%)

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)	1.7%	[1.7%, 1.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

Results (primary 0.2%, secondary 0.3%)

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)	0.2%	[0.0%, 0.5%]	128
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.0%, 0.5%]	29
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.0%, 0.5%]	128

Bootstrap: 787.726s -> 783.8s (-0.50%)
Artifact size: 335.35 MiB -> 335.31 MiB (-0.01%)

jswrenn · 2024-11-19T17:48:11Z

The UI testing checklist I'd like to see completed before we merge this:

if feature(unsafe_fields):
- the 'incomplete features' warning is emitted
- unsafe can be applied to the fields of struct-like variant fields of structs, enums and unions
  - the unsafe field's type must be Copy or ManuallyDrop
- unsafe cannot be applied to tuple-like struct fields
- unsafe cannot be applied to tuple-like enum fields
if not feature(unsafe_fields), even in cfg'd-out code:
- unsafe cannot be applied to the fields of struct-like struct fields
- unsafe cannot be applied to the fields of struct-like enum fields
- unsafe cannot be applied to the fields of struct-like (i.e., all) unions
even if not feature(unsafe_fields):
- initializing, destructuring, referencing, reading, and writing the unsafe fields of a struct/enum/union can only occur in an unsafe context (see these tests as a rough point of reference)
- initializing, destructuring, referencing, reading, and writing the safe fields of a struct/enum/union (even one that that has other unsafe fields) does not require unsafe

bors · 2024-11-21T10:58:27Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #133280) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

jswrenn

This is looking pretty good. Be sure to update the commit message, too! It's no longer a draft implementation — it's just an implementation. :-)

tests/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-unsafe_fields.rs

tests/ui/unsafe-fields.rs

compiler-errors

Generally looks okay. I've got some minor comments about style and code deduplication.

compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/item.rs

compiler/rustc_mir_build/src/check_unsafety.rs

compiler/rustc_metadata/src/rmeta/encoder.rs

compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/check/check.rs

Co-Authored-By: Jacob Pratt <jacob@jhpratt.dev>

jswrenn · 2024-11-22T16:44:29Z

@bors r+

bors · 2024-11-22T16:44:31Z

📌 Commit 9022bb2 has been approved by jswrenn

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2024-11-23T07:47:55Z

⌛ Testing commit 9022bb2 with merge 6e1c115...

bors · 2024-11-23T10:54:04Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jswrenn
Pushing 6e1c115 to master...

rust-timer · 2024-11-23T12:19:17Z

Finished benchmarking commit (6e1c115): 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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.8%, secondary -2.4%)

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)	2.3%	[1.4%, 3.1%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.4%	[-4.6%, -1.2%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[-2.1%, 3.1%]	3

Cycles

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

Binary size

Results (primary 0.2%, secondary 0.3%)

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)	0.2%	[0.0%, 0.5%]	129
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.0%, 0.5%]	31
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.0%, 0.5%]	129

Bootstrap: 797.021s -> 795.784s (-0.16%)
Artifact size: 336.26 MiB -> 336.31 MiB (0.02%)

rustbot assigned jswrenn Nov 11, 2024

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 11, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

veluca93 force-pushed the unsafe-fields branch from 4cbe0ee to 2cda185 Compare November 11, 2024 19:20

jswrenn requested changes Nov 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

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 11, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

veluca93 force-pushed the unsafe-fields branch from 2cda185 to e83abf1 Compare November 11, 2024 20:12

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

veluca93 force-pushed the unsafe-fields branch from e83abf1 to d25841e Compare November 11, 2024 20:52

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

veluca93 force-pushed the unsafe-fields branch from d25841e to 6a5fbe3 Compare November 11, 2024 21:32

traviscross mentioned this pull request Nov 11, 2024

Tracking issue for RFC 3458: Unsafe fields #132922

Open

8 tasks

jswrenn requested changes Nov 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_feature/src/unstable.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

veluca93 force-pushed the unsafe-fields branch 2 times, most recently from ff9aee3 to db32d80 Compare November 11, 2024 23:33

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Nov 12, 2024

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 12, 2024

Auto merge of rust-lang#132915 - veluca93:unsafe-fields, r=<try>

ce25ffa

Draft implementation of unsafe-fields. RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#3458 Tracking: - rust-lang#132922 r? jswrenn

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Nov 12, 2024

veluca93 force-pushed the unsafe-fields branch from 3a0a424 to b5d31a4 Compare November 20, 2024 21:26

traviscross added the F-unsafe_fields `#![feature(unsafe_fields)]` label Nov 20, 2024

veluca93 requested a review from jswrenn November 21, 2024 01:19

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

veluca93 force-pushed the unsafe-fields branch from b5d31a4 to 94e9d7e Compare November 21, 2024 11:32

jswrenn requested changes Nov 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

tests/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-unsafe_fields.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tests/ui/unsafe-fields.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

tests/ui/unsafe-fields.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

tests/ui/unsafe-fields.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

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

veluca93 force-pushed the unsafe-fields branch from 94e9d7e to 0ddfeb9 Compare November 21, 2024 14:47

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

veluca93 force-pushed the unsafe-fields branch from 0ddfeb9 to d796143 Compare November 21, 2024 15:37

veluca93 changed the title ~~Draft implementation of unsafe-fields.~~ Implement the unsafe-fields RFC. Nov 21, 2024

compiler-errors requested changes Nov 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

veluca93 force-pushed the unsafe-fields branch from d796143 to 32c1c02 Compare November 21, 2024 18:10

Implement the unsafe-fields RFC.

9022bb2

Co-Authored-By: Jacob Pratt <jacob@jhpratt.dev>

veluca93 force-pushed the unsafe-fields branch from 32c1c02 to 9022bb2 Compare November 21, 2024 18:32

jswrenn approved these changes Nov 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

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-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Nov 22, 2024

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

bors merged commit 6e1c115 into rust-lang:master Nov 23, 2024
7 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.85.0 milestone Nov 23, 2024

ytmimi mentioned this pull request Nov 24, 2024

Parse guard patterns #133424

Merged

Uh oh!

Implement the unsafe-fields RFC. #132915

Implement the unsafe-fields RFC. #132915

Uh oh!

Conversation

veluca93 commented Nov 11, 2024 • edited by traviscross Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Nov 11, 2024

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rustbot commented Nov 11, 2024

Uh oh!

jswrenn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

Uh oh!

jswrenn commented Nov 12, 2024

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Nov 12, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 12, 2024

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Nov 12, 2024

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

Uh oh!

jswrenn commented Nov 19, 2024

Uh oh!

bors commented Nov 21, 2024

Uh oh!

jswrenn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

compiler-errors left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jswrenn commented Nov 22, 2024

Uh oh!

bors 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

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

8 participants

veluca93 commented Nov 11, 2024 •

edited by traviscross

Loading