Temporary lifetime extension for blocks

[dianne]

This implements a revised version of the temporary lifetime extension semantics I suggested in #145838 (comment), with the goal of making temporary lifetimes and drop order more consistent between extending and non-extending blocks. As a consequence, this undoes the breaking change introduced by #145838 (but in exchange has a much larger surface area).

The change this PR hopes to enforce is a general rule: any expression's temporaries should have the same relative drop order regardless of whether the expression is in an extending context or not: let _ = $expr; and drop($expr); should have the same drop order. To achieve that, this PR applies lifetime extension rules to blocks:

// This `temp()` is now extended past the block tail in all contexts.
{ &temp() }

now extends the lifetime of temp() to outlive the block tail in Rust 2024 regardless of whether the block is an extending expression in a let statement initializer (in which context it was already extended to outlive the block before this PR). The scoping rules for tails of extending blocks remain the same: extending subexpressions' temporary scopes are extended based on the source of the lifetime extension (e.g. to match the scope of a parent let statement's bindings). For blocks not extended by any other source, extending borrows in the tail expression now share a temporary scope with the result of the block. This can in turn extend nested blocks within blocks' tail expressions:

// This `temp()` is extended past the outer block tail.
// It is now dropped after the reference to it at the `;`.
f({{ &temp() }});

// This context-sensitivity is consistent with `let`:
// This `temp()` was already extended.
// It is still dropped after `x` at the end of its scope.
let x = {{ &temp() }};

Since this uses the same rules as let, it only applies to extending sub-expressions.

// This `temp()` is still never extended in any context.
// In Rust 2024, it is dropped at the end of the block tail.
{ identity(&temp()) }

This also applies to if expressions' blocks since lifetime extension applies to if blocks' tail expressions, meaning it affects all editions. This is where breakage from #145838 was observed:

if cond { &temp() } else { &temp() }

now extends temp() to have the same temporary scope as the result of the if expression.

As a further consequence, this makes super let in if expressions' blocks more consistent with block expressions:

if cond() {
    super let x = temp();
    &temp
} else {
    super let x = temp();
    &temp
}

previously only worked in extending contexts (since the super lets would be extended), and now it works everywhere.

I don't think this is ready to merge yet. It should have a Reference PR, it will need a lang FCP, and it may need other things as well.

@rustbot label +T-lang

[dianne]

@rustbot label -stable-nominated

I'm not intending to stable-nominate this, at least. Someone else can, but I don't expect it's needed or that it would be accepted.

[traviscross]

Does this only affect code in Rust 2024, or would you expect any visible difference in earlier editions?

[dianne]

It should only be visible in Rust 2024. The only extending expressions that introduce temporary drop scopes are Rust 2024 block tail expressions. Edit: this is also visible on earlier editions through if expressions' blocks.

Suppose we have a macro extending!, for which $expr is extending if extending!($expr) is extending. Under this PR, in a non-extending context, { extending!(&temp()) } would give temp() the same temporary scope as the result of the block. Prior to Rust 2021, they're already in the same scope, due to extending! being unable to introduce temporary scopes.

Or to generalize this, the aim of this PR is that in a non-extending context, extending!(&temp()) should give temp() the same temporary scope as the expansion, similar to how let x = extending!(&temp()); gives temp() the same scope as x. This already holds in Rust 2021 and prior.

If new expressions are added to Rust that are both extending and temporary scopes, I'd want this behavior to apply to them as well.

[traviscross]

Since this would effectively reduce the scope of the Rust 2024 tail expression temporary scope change, we'd also want to be sure to reflect that in the behavior of the tail-expr-drop-order lint.

[dianne]

I haven't done extensive testing, but see this test diff for that lint: lint-tail-expr-drop-order-borrowck.rs. I'm applying the lifetime extension rules on all editions, and lifetime extension prevents the temporary scope from being registered as potentially forwards-incompatible (even though the extended scopes are technically the same as the old scopes in old editions). Though I think I've convinced myself at this point that lifetime extension doesn't need to be applied to block tails of non-extending old-edition blocks¹, so potentially the lint change could be implemented in some other way instead.

Footnotes

1. I was worried about mixed-edition code, but I don't think it's an issue anymore. ↩

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #146666) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[dianne]

I've made some revisions. This should now properly handle if expressions' blocks, meaning it affects all editions (since if blocks are both terminating in all editions and extending when the if expression is extending). Of note, I didn't notice at the time, but I think #145838 affected all editions as well (including the real-world breakage), due to if blocks working like that.

I think the implementation will likely need optimization and cleanup, but it might take a bit of refactoring to get it to a good place, so I'd like to get a vibe check on the design first, if there's room for it in a lang team meeting.

@rustbot label +I-lang-nominated

[traviscross]

We're building a good list of flaky tests this way...

@craterbot run p=5 mode=build-and-test crates=https://crater-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/pr-146098-3/retry-regressed-list.txt

[craterbot]

👌 Experiment pr-146098-4 created and queued.
🤖 Automatically detected try build 2440211
🔍 You can check out the queue and this experiment's details.

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

[craterbot]

🚧 Experiment pr-146098-4 is now running

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

[craterbot]

🎉 Experiment pr-146098-4 is completed!
📊 6 regressed and 1 fixed (30 total)
📊 17 spurious results on the retry-regessed-list.txt, consider a retry¹ if this is a significant amount.
📰 Open the summary 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

Footnotes

1. re-run the experiment with crates=https://crater-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/pr-146098-4/retry-regressed-list.txt ↩

[traviscross]

(Nothing else in the queue anyway, let's see if we hit a fixed point...)

@craterbot run p=5 mode=build-and-test crates=https://crater-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/pr-146098-4/retry-regressed-list.txt

[craterbot]

👌 Experiment pr-146098-5 created and queued.
🤖 Automatically detected try build 2440211
🔍 You can check out the queue and this experiment's details.

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

[craterbot]

🚧 Experiment pr-146098-5 is now running

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

[theemathas]

Triage of crater results:

• The WLambda regression has already been addressed.
• discord_spin is probably spurious, due to a linker error.
• tp-rust is spurious due to "Resource temporarily unavailable"
• pelite is spurious due to nondeterministic UB with unaligned pointers (pointer-casting a u16 slice into a reference to a struct containing u32 values)
• satrs is spurious due to the test measuring execution time.
• shack is spurious due to concurrent access to the filesystem by multiple tests.
• temporaries is an intentional "regression". The crate had the following code in a compile_fail test that started compiling due to this PR:

print!("{}", if 1 < 1 {
    format_args!("1 + 2 = {}", 1 + 2)
} else {
    format_args!("1 + 3 = {}", 1 + 3)
});

I am currently unsure what happened to the purse crate, and haven't yet gotten around to investigate it further.

All of the other errors are OOM spurious errors.

Edit: Oops. I was looking at this older crater run. The result stands though, that only the purse crate potentially has an unaddressed regression.

[craterbot]

🎉 Experiment pr-146098-5 is completed!
📊 6 regressed and 0 fixed (23 total)
📊 14 spurious results on the retry-regessed-list.txt, consider a retry¹ if this is a significant amount.
📰 Open the summary 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

Footnotes

1. re-run the experiment with crates=https://crater-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/pr-146098-5/retry-regressed-list.txt ↩

[traviscross]

Thanks for the analysis. As the bot is reminding us, if anyone is interested to do it to make later crater runs cleaner, it'd be good if possible to make a PR to crater adding all the crates with flaky tests or spurious failures that we've identified in these runs (by analysis or by observing they failed and then passed in a later run) to the list.

[dianne]

The purse test failure looks like an incorrect implementation of Purse::most_common_type. It should be finding the key in a HashMap mapping to the highest value, but instead it's taking the highest key, which uses the Ord impl of TypeId (and if it was looking at values, it would rely on HashMap iteration order). Seems like an unrelated nondeterministic failure.

[traviscross]

The crater run results seem to be nearly the best we could expect, so, I propose, let's do this.

@rfcbot fcp merge

[rust-rfcbot]

Team member @traviscross has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

• @joshtriplett
• @nikomatsakis
• @scottmcm
• @tmandry
• @traviscross

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[joshtriplett]

@rfcbot reviewed

Could someone report that non-determinism issue to purse, mentioning that it causes spurious test failures and we're observing them in crater?

[nikomatsakis]

@rfcbot reviewed

[rust-rfcbot]

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔