Rollup merge of #98888 - RalfJung:interpret-checked-bin, r=oli-obk

interpret: fix CheckedBinOp behavior when overflow checking is disabled

Adjusts the interpreter to #98738.

r? `@oli-obk`

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/interpret/intrinsics.rs

@@ -217,7 +217,9 @@ impl<'mir, 'tcx: 'mir, M: Machine<'mir, 'tcx>> InterpCx<'mir, 'tcx, M> {
                     sym::mul_with_overflow => BinOp::Mul,
                     _ => bug!(),
                 };
-                self.binop_with_overflow(bin_op, &lhs, &rhs, dest)?;
+                self.binop_with_overflow(
+                    bin_op, /*force_overflow_checks*/ true, &lhs, &rhs, dest,
+                )?;
             }
             sym::saturating_add | sym::saturating_sub => {
                 let l = self.read_immediate(&args[0])?;

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/interpret/machine.rs

@@ -144,6 +144,9 @@ pub trait Machine<'mir, 'tcx>: Sized {
         true
     }
 
+    /// Whether CheckedBinOp MIR statements should actually check for overflow.
+    fn check_binop_checks_overflow(_ecx: &InterpCx<'mir, 'tcx, Self>) -> bool;
+
     /// Entry point for obtaining the MIR of anything that should get evaluated.
     /// So not just functions and shims, but also const/static initializers, anonymous
     /// constants, ...
@@ -468,6 +471,11 @@ pub macro compile_time_machine(<$mir: lifetime, $tcx: lifetime>) {
         true
     }
 
+    #[inline(always)]
+    fn check_binop_checks_overflow(_ecx: &InterpCx<$mir, $tcx, Self>) -> bool {
+        true
+    }
+
     #[inline(always)]
     fn call_extra_fn(
         _ecx: &mut InterpCx<$mir, $tcx, Self>,

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/interpret/operator.rs

@@ -12,9 +12,13 @@ use super::{ImmTy, Immediate, InterpCx, Machine, PlaceTy};
 impl<'mir, 'tcx: 'mir, M: Machine<'mir, 'tcx>> InterpCx<'mir, 'tcx, M> {
     /// Applies the binary operation `op` to the two operands and writes a tuple of the result
     /// and a boolean signifying the potential overflow to the destination.
+    ///
+    /// `force_overflow_checks` indicates whether overflow checks should be done even when
+    /// `tcx.sess.overflow_checks()` is `false`.
     pub fn binop_with_overflow(
         &mut self,
         op: mir::BinOp,
+        force_overflow_checks: bool,
         left: &ImmTy<'tcx, M::PointerTag>,
         right: &ImmTy<'tcx, M::PointerTag>,
         dest: &PlaceTy<'tcx, M::PointerTag>,
@@ -26,6 +30,11 @@ impl<'mir, 'tcx: 'mir, M: Machine<'mir, 'tcx>> InterpCx<'mir, 'tcx, M> {
             "type mismatch for result of {:?}",
             op,
         );
+        // As per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98738, we always return `false` in the 2nd
+        // component when overflow checking is disabled.
+        let overflowed =
+            overflowed && (force_overflow_checks || M::check_binop_checks_overflow(self));
+        // Write the result to `dest`.
         if let Abi::ScalarPair(..) = dest.layout.abi {
             // We can use the optimized path and avoid `place_field` (which might do
             // `force_allocation`).

compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/interpret/step.rs

@@ -185,7 +185,9 @@ impl<'mir, 'tcx: 'mir, M: Machine<'mir, 'tcx>> InterpCx<'mir, 'tcx, M> {
                 let left = self.read_immediate(&self.eval_operand(left, None)?)?;
                 let layout = binop_right_homogeneous(bin_op).then_some(left.layout);
                 let right = self.read_immediate(&self.eval_operand(right, layout)?)?;
-                self.binop_with_overflow(bin_op, &left, &right, &dest)?;
+                self.binop_with_overflow(
+                    bin_op, /*force_overflow_checks*/ false, &left, &right, &dest,
+                )?;
             }
 
             UnaryOp(un_op, ref operand) => {

compiler/rustc_middle/src/mir/syntax.rs

@@ -993,8 +993,9 @@ pub enum Rvalue<'tcx> {
 
     /// Same as `BinaryOp`, but yields `(T, bool)` with a `bool` indicating an error condition.
     ///
-    /// When overflow checking is disabled, the error condition is false. Otherwise, the error
-    /// condition is determined as described below.
+    /// When overflow checking is disabled and we are generating run-time code, the error condition
+    /// is false. Otherwise, and always during CTFE, the error condition is determined as described
+    /// below.
     ///
     /// For addition, subtraction, and multiplication on integers the error condition is set when
     /// the infinite precision result would be unequal to the actual result.