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

explain the MIR const vs TY const situation #1793

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 18, 2023
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
49 changes: 4 additions & 45 deletions src/const-eval.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -40,52 +40,11 @@ in which the constant is evaluated (e.g. the function within which the constant
and a [`GlobalId`]. The `GlobalId` is made up of an `Instance` referring to a constant
or static or of an `Instance` of a function and an index into the function's `Promoted` table.

Constant evaluation returns an [`EvalToValTreeResult`] for type system constants or
[`EvalToConstValueResult`] with either the error, or a representation of the constant.

Constants for the type system are encoded in "valtree representation". The `ValTree` datastructure
allows us to represent

* arrays,
* many structs,
* tuples,
* enums and,
* most primitives.

The basic rule for
being permitted in the type system is that every value must be uniquely represented. In other
words: a specific value must only be representable in one specific way. For example: there is only
one way to represent an array of two integers as a `ValTree`:
`ValTree::Branch(&[ValTree::Leaf(first_int), ValTree::Leaf(second_int)])`.
Even though theoretically a `[u32; 2]` could be encoded in a `u64` and thus just be a
`ValTree::Leaf(bits_of_two_u32)`, that is not a legal construction of `ValTree`
(and is very complex to do, so it is unlikely anyone is tempted to do so).

These rules also mean that some values are not representable. There can be no `union`s in type
level constants, as it is not clear how they should be represented, because their active variant
is unknown. Similarly there is no way to represent raw pointers, as addresses are unknown at
compile-time and thus we cannot make any assumptions about them. References on the other hand
*can* be represented, as equality for references is defined as equality on their value, so we
ignore their address and just look at the backing value. We must make sure that the pointer values
of the references are not observable at compile time. We thus encode `&42` exactly like `42`.
Any conversion from
valtree back to codegen constants must reintroduce an actual indirection. At codegen time the
addresses may be deduplicated between multiple uses or not, entirely depending on arbitrary
optimization choices.

As a consequence, all decoding of `ValTree` must happen by matching on the type first and making
decisions depending on that. The value itself gives no useful information without the type that
belongs to it.

Other constants get represented as [`ConstValue::Scalar`] or
[`ConstValue::Slice`] if possible. These values are only useful outside the
compile-time interpreter. If you need the value of a constant during
interpretation, you need to directly work with [`const_to_op`].
Constant evaluation returns an [`EvalToValTreeResult`] for type system constants
or [`EvalToConstValueResult`] with either the error, or a representation of the
evaluated constant: a [valtree](mir/index.md#valtrees) or a [MIR constant
value](mir/index.md#mir-constant-values), respectively.

[`GlobalId`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/mir/interpret/struct.GlobalId.html
[`ConstValue::Scalar`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/mir/interpret/value/enum.ConstValue.html#variant.Scalar
[`ConstValue::Slice`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/mir/interpret/value/enum.ConstValue.html#variant.Slice
[`ConstValue::ByRef`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/mir/interpret/value/enum.ConstValue.html#variant.ByRef
[`EvalToConstValueResult`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/mir/interpret/error/type.EvalToConstValueResult.html
[`EvalToValTreeResult`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/mir/interpret/error/type.EvalToValTreeResult.html
[`const_to_op`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_const_eval/interpret/struct.InterpCx.html#method.const_to_op
72 changes: 71 additions & 1 deletion src/mir/index.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -255,7 +255,75 @@ but [you can read about those below](#promoted)).

## Representing constants

*to be written*
When code has reached the MIR stage, constants can generally come in two forms:
*MIR constants* ([`mir::Constant`]) and *type system constants* ([`ty::Const`]).
MIR constants are used as operands: in `x + CONST`, `CONST` is a MIR constant;
similarly, in `x + 2`, `2` is a MIR constant. Type system constants are used in
the type system, in particular for array lengths but also for const generics.

Generally, both kinds of constants can be "unevaluated" or "already evaluated".
And unevaluated constant simply stores the `DefId` of what needs to be evaluated
to compute this result. An evaluated constant (a "value") has already been
computed; their representation differs between type system constants and MIR
constants: MIR constants evaluate to a `mir::ConstValue`; type system constants
evaluate to a `ty::ValTree`.

Type system constants have some more variants to support const generics: they
can refer to local const generic parameters, and they are subject to inference.
Furthermore, the `mir::Constant::Ty` variant lets us use an arbitrary type
system constant as a MIR constant; this happens whenever a const generic
parameter is used as an operand.

### MIR constant values

In general, a MIR constant value (`mir::ConstValue`) was computed by evaluating
some constant the user wrote. This [const evaluation](../const-eval.md) produces
a very low-level representation of the result in terms of individual bytes. We
call this an "indirect" constant (`mir::ConstValue::Indirect`) since the value
is stored in-memory.

However, storing everything in-memory would be awfully inefficient. Hence there
are some other variants in `mir::ConstValue` that can represent certain simple
and common values more efficiently. In particular, everything that can be
directly written as a literal in Rust (integers, floats, chars, bools, but also
`"string literals"` and `b"byte string literals"`) has an optimized variant that
avoids the full overhead of the in-memory representation.

### ValTrees
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is arguably a bit misplaced in the MIR section, but I didn't find a "type system" section. previously it was in the const-eval section and that seems worse.


An evaluated type system constant is a "valtree". The `ty::ValTree` datastructure
allows us to represent

* arrays,
* many structs,
* tuples,
* enums and,
* most primitives.

The most important rule for
this representation is that every value must be uniquely represented. In other
words: a specific value must only be representable in one specific way. For example: there is only
one way to represent an array of two integers as a `ValTree`:
`ValTree::Branch(&[ValTree::Leaf(first_int), ValTree::Leaf(second_int)])`.
Even though theoretically a `[u32; 2]` could be encoded in a `u64` and thus just be a
`ValTree::Leaf(bits_of_two_u32)`, that is not a legal construction of `ValTree`
(and is very complex to do, so it is unlikely anyone is tempted to do so).

These rules also mean that some values are not representable. There can be no `union`s in type
level constants, as it is not clear how they should be represented, because their active variant
is unknown. Similarly there is no way to represent raw pointers, as addresses are unknown at
compile-time and thus we cannot make any assumptions about them. References on the other hand
*can* be represented, as equality for references is defined as equality on their value, so we
ignore their address and just look at the backing value. We must make sure that the pointer values
of the references are not observable at compile time. We thus encode `&42` exactly like `42`.
Any conversion from
valtree back a to MIR constant value must reintroduce an actual indirection. At codegen time the
addresses may be deduplicated between multiple uses or not, entirely depending on arbitrary
optimization choices.

As a consequence, all decoding of `ValTree` must happen by matching on the type first and making
decisions depending on that. The value itself gives no useful information without the type that
belongs to it.

<a name="promoted"></a>

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -283,3 +351,5 @@ See the const-eval WG's [docs on promotion](https://github.com/rust-lang/const-e
[`ProjectionElem::Deref`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/mir/enum.ProjectionElem.html#variant.Deref
[`Rvalue`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/mir/enum.Rvalue.html
[`Operand`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/mir/enum.Operand.html
[`mir::Constant`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/mir/struct.Constant.html
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It seems the link is invalid right now and I can't easily find the corresponding struct type the link should point to.
@RalfJung: Can you please address it?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

mir::Constant has been renamed to this.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great! I'm going to include it in #2024.

[`ty::Const`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/struct.Const.html