Allow if and match in constants

text/2342-const-control-flow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+- Feature Name: `const-control-flow`
+- Start Date: 2018-01-11
+- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#2342](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2342)
+- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#49146](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49146)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Enable `if` and `match` during const evaluation and make them evaluate lazily.
+In short, this will allow `if x < y { y - x } else { x - y }` even though the
+else branch would emit an overflow error for unsigned types if `x < y`.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+Conditions in constants are important for making functions like `NonZero::new`
+const fn and interpreting assertions.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+If you write
+
+```rust
+let x: u32 = ...;
+let y: u32 = ...;
+let a = x - y;
+let b = y - x;
+if x > y {
+    // do something with a
+} else {
+    // do something with b
+}
+```
+
+The program will always panic (except if both `x` and `y` are `0`) because
+either `x - y` will overflow or `y - x` will. To resolve this one must move the
+`let a` and `let b` into the `if` and `else` branch respectively.
+
+```rust
+let x: u32 = ...;
+let y: u32 = ...;
+if x > y {
+    let a = x - y;
+    // do something with a
+} else {
+    let b = y - x;
+    // do something with b
+}
+```
+
+When constants are involved, new issues arise:
+
+```rust
+const X: u32 = ...;
+const Y: u32 = ...;
+const FOO: SomeType = if X > Y {
+    const A: u32 = X - Y;
+    ...
+} else {
+    const B: u32 = Y - X;
+    ...
+};
+```
+
+`A` and `B` are evaluated before `FOO`, since constants are by definition
+constant, so their order of evaluation should not matter. This assumption breaks
+in the presence of errors, because errors are side effects, and thus not pure.
+
+To resolve this issue, one needs to eliminate the intermediate constants and
+directly evaluate `X - Y` and `Y - X`.
+
+```rust
+const X: u32 = ...;
+const Y: u32 = ...;
+const FOO: SomeType = if X > Y {
+    let a = X - Y;
+    ...
+} else {
+    let b = Y - X;
+    ...
+};
+```
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+`match` on enums whose variants have no fields or `if` is translated during HIR
+-> MIR lowering to a `switchInt` terminator. Mir interpretation will now have to
+evaluate those terminators (which it already can).
+
+`match` on enums with variants which have fields is translated to `switch`,
+which will check either the discriminant or compute the discriminant in the case
+of packed enums like `Option<&T>` (which has no special memory location for the
+discriminant, but encodes `None` as all zeros and treats everything else as a
+`Some`). When entering a `match` arm's branch, the matched on value is
+essentially transmuted to the enum variant's type, allowing further code to
+access its fields.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+This makes it easier to fail compilation on random "constant" values like
+`size_of::<T>()` or other platform specific constants.
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+## Require intermediate const fns to break the eager const evaluation
+
+Instead of writing
+
+```rust
+const X: u32 = ...;
+const Y: u32 = ...;
+const AB: u32 = if X > Y {
+    X - Y
+} else {
+    Y - X
+};
+```
+
+where either `X - Y` or `Y - X` would emit an error, add an intermediate const fn
+
+```rust
+const X: u32 = ...;
+const Y: u32 = ...;
+const fn foo(x: u32, y: u32) -> u32 {
+    if x > y {
+        x - y
+    } else {
+        y - x
+    }
+}
+const AB: u32 = foo(x, y);
+```
+
+Since the const fn's `x` and `y` arguments are unknown, they cannot be const
+evaluated. When the const fn is evaluated with given arguments, only the taken
+branch is evaluated.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions