Ensure constants are WF before calling into CTFE #137972

BoxyUwU · 2025-03-04T00:04:46Z

Fixes #127643
Fixes #131046
Fixes #131406
Fixes #133066
Fixes #137813
Fixes #136894
Fixes #135617

I'll write a PR desc for this tommorow

compiler-errors · 2025-03-04T01:42:47Z

(even if perf is bad we should still land something like this, i just want to know if we should look into a fast-path for consts with no predicates or something)

…try> Ensure constants are WF before calling into CTFE Fixes rust-lang#127643 Fixes rust-lang#131046 Fixes rust-lang#131406 Fixes rust-lang#133066 I'll write a PR desc for this tommorow r? `@ghost`

bors · 2025-03-04T01:43:59Z

⌛ Trying commit f770b29 with merge 4cbf2ca...

bors · 2025-03-04T03:40:25Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 4cbf2ca (4cbf2caac854e029139f36a69fee8be4648333a7)

BoxyUwU · 2025-03-04T03:54:33Z

I don't think this actually takes any effect on stable so i dont think a perf run will show anything ^^' and there's already a fast path for no preds so would have to remove that before a perf run to get actual info

rust-timer · 2025-03-04T05:15:01Z

Finished benchmarking commit (4cbf2ca): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - 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)	0.6%	[0.6%, 0.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 3.0%, secondary 1.4%)

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)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.4%	[1.4%, 1.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	3.0%	[3.0%, 3.0%]	1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 773.808s -> 773.59s (-0.03%)
Artifact size: 361.97 MiB -> 361.99 MiB (0.01%)

compiler-errors · 2025-03-04T05:16:37Z

noise

@bors rollup=maybe

compiler-errors · 2025-03-04T05:17:06Z

actually, ctfe stress test lol

maybe not noise 🤔

BoxyUwU · 2025-03-04T06:27:18Z

idk what could have caused it lol, the only stable affecting change here should be that we check an extra feature gate or two.. which seems ridiculous for it to cause a 0.5% perf regression lol

BoxyUwU · 2025-03-04T18:57:48Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

redoing perf but without the fast-path and also not skipped for repeat-exprs

bors · 2025-03-04T18:58:59Z

⌛ Trying commit d2152f4 with merge efc52dd...

…try> Ensure constants are WF before calling into CTFE Fixes rust-lang#127643 Fixes rust-lang#131046 Fixes rust-lang#131406 Fixes rust-lang#133066 I'll write a PR desc for this tommorow r? `@ghost`

bors · 2025-03-04T21:00:51Z

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: efc52dd (efc52dd16f1ef3064cac12292a24e76cfb8446f2)

rust-timer · 2025-03-04T22:16:50Z

Finished benchmarking commit (efc52dd): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ 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
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -1.6%, 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)	2.5%	[2.5%, 2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.5%	[-3.0%, -2.0%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-1.6%, -1.6%]	1

Cycles

Results (secondary -3.6%)

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)	1.5%	[1.5%, 1.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-6.2%	[-6.2%, -6.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: missing data
Artifact size: 362.04 MiB -> 362.12 MiB (0.02%)

BoxyUwU · 2025-03-04T22:46:39Z

ok I think it was just entirely spurrious regression the previous perf run, and also we in general do not need a fast path for empty preds

craterbot · 2025-03-15T19:27:52Z

🎉 Experiment pr-137972 is completed!
📊 6 regressed and 13 fixed (597764 total)
📰 Open the full report.

⚠️ If you notice any spurious failure please add them to the denylist!
ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

BoxyUwU · 2025-03-16T11:16:03Z

(2 real regressions, both in code using feature(generic_const_exprs). so this change has no stable affecting breakage in practice even though theoretically breaking.)

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/const_eval/eval_queries.rs

bors · 2025-04-02T18:47:28Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #139257) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

BoxyUwU · 2025-04-02T19:09:23Z

ah right i need to finish this PR off..

BoxyUwU · 2025-04-14T16:26:07Z

compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/solve/normalizes_to/anon_const.rs

+            // FIXME(BoxyUwU) FIXME(min_generic_const_args): I could not figure out how to write a test for this
+            // as we don't currently support constants in the type system with impossible predicates. It may become
+            // possible once `min_generic_const_args` has progressed more.


Maybe this is possible with GCE? I don't really want to write a load bearing GCE test lol

BoxyUwU · 2025-04-16T16:33:19Z

I think mgca is just going to accidentally fix this once type system norm is implemented as we'll wind up with fully concrete anon consts to norm to and evaluate 🤔

BoxyUwU · 2025-04-23T22:56:53Z

I changed my mind...

compiler-errors · 2025-04-23T22:57:57Z

meow

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 Mar 4, 2025

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 Mar 4, 2025

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 Mar 4, 2025

BoxyUwU force-pushed the ty_const_wf_before_eval branch from f770b29 to d2152f4 Compare March 4, 2025 18:53

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 Mar 4, 2025

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 Mar 4, 2025

BoxyUwU force-pushed the ty_const_wf_before_eval branch from d2152f4 to 32aff32 Compare March 6, 2025 01:30

rustbot added the PG-exploit-mitigations Project group: Exploit mitigations label Mar 6, 2025

BoxyUwU force-pushed the ty_const_wf_before_eval branch from 32aff32 to 5f88c8c Compare March 6, 2025 02:29

BoxyUwU removed the PG-exploit-mitigations Project group: Exploit mitigations label Mar 6, 2025

craterbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-crater Status: Waiting on a crater run to be completed. labels Mar 15, 2025

BoxyUwU commented Mar 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/const_eval/eval_queries.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

BoxyUwU force-pushed the ty_const_wf_before_eval branch from c15f5a9 to 93e48fd Compare April 14, 2025 15:34

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

BoxyUwU force-pushed the ty_const_wf_before_eval branch 2 times, most recently from 335a964 to ffdfbca Compare April 14, 2025 16:20

BoxyUwU commented Apr 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

BoxyUwU force-pushed the ty_const_wf_before_eval branch from ffdfbca to a5ed0a7 Compare April 14, 2025 18:23

BoxyUwU added 7 commits April 15, 2025 14:01

Rename from_method to from_assoc_args

e8c7fed

Introduce tcx.anon_const_kind query

3bbcdc7

Impossible preds tests

86ec81f

Properly defer evaluation of consts with infers/params

8862aea

Check for impossible preds before evaluating definitions

031f947

Bless (and add) some tests

fe25260

Comment about normalization of anon consts with impossible preds

d5a2707

BoxyUwU force-pushed the ty_const_wf_before_eval branch from a5ed0a7 to d5a2707 Compare April 15, 2025 14:19

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Fix missing value for constant ICE

376ff5d

BoxyUwU force-pushed the ty_const_wf_before_eval branch from 962bddf to 376ff5d Compare April 15, 2025 18:21

BoxyUwU closed this Apr 16, 2025

BoxyUwU reopened this Apr 23, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Ensure constants are WF before calling into CTFE #137972

Ensure constants are WF before calling into CTFE #137972

BoxyUwU commented Mar 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

compiler-errors commented Mar 4, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 4, 2025

bors commented Mar 4, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

BoxyUwU commented Mar 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

rust-timer commented Mar 4, 2025

compiler-errors commented Mar 4, 2025

compiler-errors commented Mar 4, 2025

BoxyUwU commented Mar 4, 2025

BoxyUwU commented Mar 4, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 4, 2025

bors commented Mar 4, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 4, 2025

BoxyUwU commented Mar 4, 2025

craterbot commented Mar 15, 2025

BoxyUwU commented Mar 16, 2025

bors commented Apr 2, 2025

BoxyUwU commented Apr 2, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

BoxyUwU Apr 14, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

BoxyUwU commented Apr 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

BoxyUwU commented Apr 23, 2025

compiler-errors commented Apr 23, 2025

Ensure constants are WF before calling into CTFE #137972

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Ensure constants are WF before calling into CTFE #137972

Conversation

BoxyUwU commented Mar 4, 2025 • edited Loading

compiler-errors commented Mar 4, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 4, 2025

bors commented Mar 4, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

BoxyUwU commented Mar 4, 2025 • edited Loading

rust-timer commented Mar 4, 2025

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

compiler-errors commented Mar 4, 2025

compiler-errors commented Mar 4, 2025

BoxyUwU commented Mar 4, 2025

BoxyUwU commented Mar 4, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented Mar 4, 2025

bors commented Mar 4, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Mar 4, 2025

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

BoxyUwU commented Mar 4, 2025

craterbot commented Mar 15, 2025

BoxyUwU commented Mar 16, 2025

bors commented Apr 2, 2025

BoxyUwU commented Apr 2, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

BoxyUwU commented Apr 16, 2025 • edited Loading

BoxyUwU commented Apr 23, 2025

compiler-errors commented Apr 23, 2025

BoxyUwU commented Mar 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

BoxyUwU commented Mar 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

BoxyUwU commented Apr 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading