Implement -Z oom=panic
This PR removes the `#[rustc_allocator_nounwind]` attribute on `alloc_error_handler` which allows it to unwind with a panic instead of always aborting. This is then used to implement `-Z oom=panic` as per RFC 2116 (tracking issue #43596).
Perf and binary size tests show negligible impact.
There are a few places were we have to construct it, though, and a few
places that are more invasive to change. To do this, we create a
constructor with a long obvious name.
Treat unstable lints as unknown
This change causes unstable lints to be ignored if the `unknown_lints`
lint is allowed. To achieve this, it also changes lints to apply as soon
as they are processed. Previously, lints in the same set were processed
as a batch and then all simultaneously applied.
Implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/469
This also affects the `non_exhaustive_omitted_patterns` and
`must_not_suspend` lints as they are not stable. This also changes the
diagnostic level to pull from `unknown_lints` instead of always being
allow or deny.
Add well known values to `--check-cfg` implementation
This pull-request adds well known values for the well known names via `--check-cfg=values()`.
[RFC 3013: Checking conditional compilation at compile time](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3013-conditional-compilation-checking.html#checking-conditional-compilation-at-compile-time) doesn't define this at all, but this seems a nice improvement.
The activation is done by a empty `values()` (new syntax) similar to `names()` except that `names(foo)` also activate well known names while `values(aa, "aa", "kk")` would not.
As stated this use a different activation logic because well known values for the well known names are not always sufficient.
In fact this is problematic for every `target_*` cfg because of non builtin targets, as the current implementation use those built-ins targets to create the list the well known values.
The implementation is straight forward, first we gather (if necessary) all the values (lazily or not) and then we apply them.
r? ```@petrochenkov```
Remove num_cpus dependency from bootstrap, build-manifest and rustc_s…
…ession
`std::threads::available_parallelism` was stabilized in rust 1.59.
r? ```````````````````````````@Mark-Simulacrum```````````````````````````
Implementation of the `expect` attribute (RFC 2383)
This is an implementation of the `expect` attribute as described in [RFC-2383](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2383-lint-reasons.html). The attribute allows the suppression of lint message by expecting them. Unfulfilled lint expectations (meaning no expected lint was caught) will emit the `unfulfilled_lint_expectations` lint at the `expect` attribute.
### Example
#### input
```rs
// required feature flag
#![feature(lint_reasons)]
#[expect(unused_mut)] // Will warn about an unfulfilled expectation
#[expect(unused_variables)] // Will be fulfilled by x
fn main() {
let x = 0;
}
```
#### output
```txt
warning: this lint expectation is unfulfilled
--> $DIR/trigger_lint.rs:3:1
|
LL | #[expect(unused_mut)] // Will warn about an unfulfilled expectation
| ^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(unfulfilled_lint_expectations)]` on by default
```
### Implementation
This implementation introduces `Expect` as a new lint level for diagnostics, which have been expected. All lint expectations marked via the `expect` attribute are collected in the [`LintLevelsBuilder`] and assigned an ID that is stored in the new lint level. The `LintLevelsBuilder` stores all found expectations and the data needed to emit the `unfulfilled_lint_expectations` in the [`LintLevelsMap`] which is the result of the [`lint_levels()`] query.
The [`rustc_errors::HandlerInner`] is the central error handler in rustc and handles the emission of all diagnostics. Lint message with the level `Expect` are suppressed during this emission, while the expectation ID is stored in a set which marks them as fulfilled. The last step is then so simply check if all expectations collected by the [`LintLevelsBuilder`] in the [`LintLevelsMap`] have been marked as fulfilled in the [`rustc_errors::HandlerInner`]. Otherwise, a new lint message will be emitted.
The implementation of the `LintExpectationId` required some special handling to make it stable between sessions. Lints can be emitted during [`EarlyLintPass`]es. At this stage, it's not possible to create a stable identifier. The level instead stores an unstable identifier, which is later converted to a stable `LintExpectationId`.
### Followup TO-DOs
All open TO-DOs have been marked with `FIXME` comments in the code. This is the combined list of them:
* [ ] The current implementation doesn't cover cases where the `unfulfilled_lint_expectations` lint is actually expected by another `expect` attribute.
* This should be easily possible, but I wanted to get some feedback before putting more work into this.
* This could also be done in a new PR to not add to much more code to this one
* [ ] Update unstable documentation to reflect this change.
* [ ] Update unstable expectation ids in [`HandlerInner::stashed_diagnostics`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_errors/struct.HandlerInner.html#structfield.stashed_diagnostics)
### Open questions
I also have a few open questions where I would like to get feedback on:
1. The RFC discussion included a suggestion to change the `expect` attribute to something else. (Initiated by `@Ixrec` [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2383#issuecomment-378424091), suggestion from `@scottmcm` to use `#[should_lint(...)]` [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2383#issuecomment-378648877)). No real conclusion was drawn on that point from my understanding. Is this still open for discussion, or was this discarded with the merge of the RFC?
2. How should the expect attribute deal with the new `force-warn` lint level?
---
This approach was inspired by a discussion with `@LeSeulArtichaut.`
RFC tracking issue: #54503
Mentoring/Implementation issue: #85549
[`LintLevelsBuilder`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_lint/levels/struct.LintLevelsBuilder.html
[`LintLevelsMap`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/lint/struct.LintLevelMap.html
[`lint_levels()`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/context/struct.TyCtxt.html#method.lint_levels
[`rustc_errors::HandlerInner`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_errors/struct.HandlerInner.html
[`EarlyLintPass`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_lint/trait.EarlyLintPass.html
No branch protection metadata unless enabled
Even if we emit metadata disabling branch protection, this metadata may
conflict with other modules (e.g. during LTO) that have different branch
protection metadata set.
This is an unstable flag and feature, so ideally the flag not being
specified should act as if the feature wasn't implemented in the first
place.
Additionally this PR also ensures we emit an error if
`-Zbranch-protection` is set on targets other than the supported
aarch64. For now the error is being output from codegen, but ideally it
should be moved to earlier in the pipeline before stabilization.
Use undef for (some) partially-uninit constants
There needs to be some limit to avoid perf regressions on large arrays
with undef in each element (see comment in the code).
Fixes: #84565
Original PR: #83698
Depends on LLVM 14: #93577
rustc_errors: let `DiagnosticBuilder::emit` return a "guarantee of emission".
That is, `DiagnosticBuilder` is now generic over the return type of `.emit()`, so we'll now have:
* `DiagnosticBuilder<ErrorReported>` for error (incl. fatal/bug) diagnostics
* can only be created via a `const L: Level`-generic constructor, that limits allowed variants via a `where` clause, so not even `rustc_errors` can accidentally bypass this limitation
* asserts `diagnostic.is_error()` on emission, just in case the construction restriction was bypassed (e.g. by replacing the whole `Diagnostic` inside `DiagnosticBuilder`)
* `.emit()` returns `ErrorReported`, as a "proof" token that `.emit()` was called
(though note that this isn't a real guarantee until after completing the work on
#69426)
* `DiagnosticBuilder<()>` for everything else (warnings, notes, etc.)
* can also be obtained from other `DiagnosticBuilder`s by calling `.forget_guarantee()`
This PR is a companion to other ongoing work, namely:
* #69426
and it's ongoing implementation:
#93222
the API changes in this PR are needed to get statically-checked "only errors produce `ErrorReported` from `.emit()`", but doesn't itself provide any really strong guarantees without those other `ErrorReported` changes
* #93244
would make the choices of API changes (esp. naming) in this PR fit better overall
In order to be able to let `.emit()` return anything trustable, several changes had to be made:
* `Diagnostic`'s `level` field is now private to `rustc_errors`, to disallow arbitrary "downgrade"s from "some kind of error" to "warning" (or anything else that doesn't cause compilation to fail)
* it's still possible to replace the whole `Diagnostic` inside the `DiagnosticBuilder`, sadly, that's harder to fix, but it's unlikely enough that we can paper over it with asserts on `.emit()`
* `.cancel()` now consumes `DiagnosticBuilder`, preventing `.emit()` calls on a cancelled diagnostic
* it's also now done internally, through `DiagnosticBuilder`-private state, instead of having a `Level::Cancelled` variant that can be read (or worse, written) by the user
* this removes a hazard of calling `.cancel()` on an error then continuing to attach details to it, and even expect to be able to `.emit()` it
* warnings were switched to *only* `can_emit_warnings` on emission (instead of pre-cancelling early)
* `struct_dummy` was removed (as it relied on a pre-`Cancelled` `Diagnostic`)
* since `.emit()` doesn't consume the `DiagnosticBuilder` <sub>(I tried and gave up, it's much more work than this PR)</sub>,
we have to make `.emit()` idempotent wrt the guarantees it returns
* thankfully, `err.emit(); err.emit();` can return `ErrorReported` both times, as the second `.emit()` call has no side-effects *only* because the first one did do the appropriate emission
* `&mut Diagnostic` is now used in a lot of function signatures, which used to take `&mut DiagnosticBuilder` (in the interest of not having to make those functions generic)
* the APIs were already mostly identical, allowing for low-effort porting to this new setup
* only some of the suggestion methods needed some rework, to have the extra `DiagnosticBuilder` functionality on the `Diagnostic` methods themselves (that change is also present in #93259)
* `.emit()`/`.cancel()` aren't available, but IMO calling them from an "error decorator/annotator" function isn't a good practice, and can lead to strange behavior (from the caller's perspective)
* `.downgrade_to_delayed_bug()` was added, letting you convert any `.is_error()` diagnostic into a `delay_span_bug` one (which works because in both cases the guarantees available are the same)
This PR should ideally be reviewed commit-by-commit, since there is a lot of fallout in each.
r? `@estebank` cc `@Manishearth` `@nikomatsakis` `@mark-i-m`
Improve `--check-cfg` implementation
This pull-request is a mix of improvements regarding the `--check-cfg` implementation:
- Simpler internal representation (usage of `Option` instead of separate bool)
- Add --check-cfg to the unstable book (based on the RFC)
- Improved diagnostics:
* List possible values when the value is unexpected
* Suggest if possible a name or value that is similar
- Add more tests (well known names, mix of combinations, ...)
r? ```@petrochenkov```
Adopt let else in more places
Continuation of #89933, #91018, #91481, #93046, #93590, #94011.
I have extended my clippy lint to also recognize tuple passing and match statements. The diff caused by fixing it is way above 1 thousand lines. Thus, I split it up into multiple pull requests to make reviewing easier. This is the biggest of these PRs and handles the changes outside of rustdoc, rustc_typeck, rustc_const_eval, rustc_trait_selection, which were handled in PRs #94139, #94142, #94143, #94144.
Even if we emit metadata disabling branch protection, this metadata may
conflict with other modules (e.g. during LTO) that have different branch
protection metadata set.
This is an unstable flag and feature, so ideally the flag not being
specified should act as if the feature wasn't implemented in the first
place.
Additionally this PR also ensures we emit an error if
`-Zbranch-protection` is set on targets other than the supported
aarch64. For now the error is being output from codegen, but ideally it
should be moved to earlier in the pipeline before stabilization.
Add MemTagSanitizer Support
Add support for the LLVM [MemTagSanitizer](https://llvm.org/docs/MemTagSanitizer.html).
On hardware which supports it (see caveats below), the MemTagSanitizer can catch bugs similar to AddressSanitizer and HardwareAddressSanitizer, but with lower overhead.
On a tag mismatch, a SIGSEGV is signaled with code SEGV_MTESERR / SEGV_MTEAERR.
# Usage
`-Zsanitizer=memtag -C target-feature="+mte"`
# Comments/Caveats
* MemTagSanitizer is only supported on AArch64 targets with hardware support
* Requires `-C target-feature="+mte"`
* LLVM MemTagSanitizer currently only performs stack tagging.
# TODO
* Tests
* Example
This change adds a flag for configuring control-flow protection in the
LLVM backend. In Clang, this flag is exposed as `-fcf-protection` with
options `none|branch|return|full`. This convention is followed for
`rustc`, though as a codegen option: `rustc -Z
cf-protection=<none|branch|return|full>`.
Co-authored-by: BlackHoleFox <blackholefoxdev@gmail.com>
This option introduced in #15820 allows a custom crate to be imported in
the place of std, but with the name std. I don't think there is any
value to this. At most it is confusing users of a driver that uses this option. There are no users of
this option on github. If anyone still needs it, they can emulate it
injecting #![no_core] in addition to their own prelude.
Delete -Zquery-stats infrastructure
These statistics are computable from the self-profile data and/or ad-hoc collectable as needed, and in the meantime contribute to rustc bootstrap times -- locally, this PR shaves ~2.5% from rustc_query_impl builds in instruction counts.
If this does lose some functionality we want to keep, I think we should migrate it to self-profile (or a similar interface) rather than this ad-hoc reporting.
These statistics are computable from the self-profile data and/or ad-hoc
collectable as needed, and in the meantime contribute to rustc bootstrap times.
Stabilize `-Z instrument-coverage` as `-C instrument-coverage`
(Tracking issue for `instrument-coverage`: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79121)
This PR stabilizes support for instrumentation-based code coverage, previously provided via the `-Z instrument-coverage` option. (Continue supporting `-Z instrument-coverage` for compatibility for now, but show a deprecation warning for it.)
Many, many people have tested this support, and there are numerous reports of it working as expected.
Move the documentation from the unstable book to stable rustc documentation. Update uses and documentation to use the `-C` option.
Addressing questions raised in the tracking issue:
> If/when stabilized, will the compiler flag be updated to -C instrument-coverage? (If so, the -Z variant could also be supported for some time, to ease migrations for existing users and scripts.)
This stabilization PR updates the option to `-C` and keeps the `-Z` variant to ease migration.
> The Rust coverage implementation depends on (and automatically turns on) -Z symbol-mangling-version=v0. Will stabilizing this feature depend on stabilizing v0 symbol-mangling first? If so, what is the current status and timeline?
This stabilization PR depends on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90128 , which stabilizes `-C symbol-mangling-version=v0` (but does not change the default symbol-mangling-version).
> The Rust coverage implementation implements the latest version of LLVM's Coverage Mapping Format (version 4), which forces a dependency on LLVM 11 or later. A compiler error is generated if attempting to compile with coverage, and using an older version of LLVM.
Given that LLVM 13 has now been released, requiring LLVM 11 for coverage support seems like a reasonable requirement. If people don't have at least LLVM 11, nothing else breaks; they just can't use coverage support. Given that coverage support currently requires a nightly compiler and LLVM 11 or newer, allowing it on a stable compiler built with LLVM 11 or newer seems like an improvement.
The [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79121) and the [issue label A-code-coverage](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/labels/A-code-coverage) link to a few open issues related to `instrument-coverage`, but none of them seem like showstoppers. All of them seem like improvements and refinements we can make after stabilization.
The original `-Z instrument-coverage` support went through a compiler-team MCP at https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/278 . Based on that, `@pnkfelix` suggested that this needed a stabilization PR and a compiler-team FCP.
Currently, it can be `None` if the conversion from `OsString` fails, in
which case all searches will skip over the `SearchPathFile`.
The commit changes things so that the `SearchPathFile` just doesn't get
created in the first place. Same behaviour, but slightly simpler code.
