Add new EFIAPI ABI
Fixes#54527
Adds a new ABI, "efiapi", which reflects the calling convention as specified by [the current spec UEFI spec](https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI%20Spec%202_7_A%20Sept%206.pdf#G6.999903). When compiling for x86_64, we should select the `win64` ABI, while on all other architectures (Itanium, x86, ARM and ARM64 and RISC-V), we should select the `C` ABI.
Currently, this is done by just turning it into the C ABI everywhere except on x86_64, where it's turned into the win64 ABI. Should we prevent this ABI from being used on unsupported architectures, and if so, how would this be done?
Improve the "try using a variant of the expected type" hint.
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65494.
- Change type-printing output.
- Use `span_to_snippet` when possible.
- Change the message to `try using a variant of the expected enum`
Lint ignored `#[inline]` on function prototypes
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51280.
- Adds a `unused_attribute` lint for `#[inline]` on function prototypes.
- As a consequence, foreign items, impl items and trait items now have their attributes checked, which could cause some code to no longer compile (it was previously erroneously ignored).
Output previous stable error messaging when using stable build.
Fixes#65254
As I had mentioned previously there I have the logic running right now however I'm not getting the exact same syntax highlighting as there was originally for this error.
I'm currently getting the following:
```
error: expected expression, found statement (`let`)
--> src/main.rs:2:14
|
2 | let x = (let y = 6);
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: variable declaration using `let` is a statement
```
I'd like to get the following instead:
```
| let x = (let y = 6);
| ^^^
```
My current understanding is that the `span` being passed into `lower_expr_let` is coming from `lowering.rs`. I still don't know how the byte range is calculated for the erroneous syntax and need to look into it a bit more. In the meantime does anybody have any hints/tips regarding this??
self-profiling: Record something more useful for crate metadata generation event.
Before this commit, we had an event that would only track the compression step
for proc-macros and Rust dylibs. After the commit we measure the time for
acutally generating the crate metadata bytes.
r? @wesleywiser
doc: introduce `once` in `iter::chain` document
I find it hard to find which one to use with `chain` when I only need to
chain one value. Also [`once`][1] talks about `chain`.
[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/iter/fn.once.html
suggest `const_in_array_repeat_expression` flag
This PR adds a suggestion to add the `#![feature(const_in_array_repeat_expression)]` attribute to the crate when a promotable expression is used in a repeat expression and the feature gate is not enabled.
Unfortunately, this ended up being a little bit more complex than I anticipated, which may not have been worth it given that this would all be removed when the feature is stabilized. However, with #65732 and #65737 being open, and the feature gate having not been being suggested to potential users, the feature might not be stabilized in a while, so maybe this is worth landing.
cc @Centril (addresses [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61749#discussion_r307863857))
r? @ecstatic-morse (opened issues related to RFC 2203 recently)
rustc: use IndexVec<DefIndex, T> instead of Vec<T>.
Now that `DefIndex` is a proper index type, we can do that.
There was also an unnecessary `Option` I removed, I wonder if that has perf implications.
Use heuristics to recover parsing of missing `;`
- Detect `,` and `:` typos where `;` was intended.
- When the next token could have been the start of a new statement,
detect a missing semicolon.
Fix#48160, fix#44767 (after adding note about statements).
This commit adds a suggestion to add the
`#![feature(const_in_array_repeat_expression)]` attribute to the crate
when a promotable expression is used in a repeat expression.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
ci: move most of the prepare config into scripts
This PR moves most of the configuration from the CI yamls into bash scripts, driven by a small Python script (which understands and emulates the two `##vso[` commands we use).
There are two reasons why we'd want to do this:
* Being able to prepare the build environment locally by just running `src/ci/prepare.py` simplifies a lot setting up a local VM similar to CI (software pre-installed in the CI images won't be prepared, but it's a start anyway).
* When we'll switch to GitHub Actions we'll need to either duplicate code in multiple workflows or write a preprocessor. Having all the prepare steps in a single one is going to simplify the implementation of both options.
Along with the move I did a few changes to the actual scripts:
* Mirrored all the remaining external URLs we download (except chocolatey) to the `rust-lang-ci-mirrors` bucket, to increase reliability and reduce the chance of supply chain attacks. I didn't audit and mirror the CI scripts outside this PR though.
* Extracted CI-specific behavior (like issuing `##vso[` commands and detecting the host platform) into `shared.sh` and included it in most of the scripts. This way a switch to another CI provider will be less painful.
It's possible (and easier) to review this commit-by-commit.
r? @alexcrichton
cc @rust-lang/infra
Before this commit, we had an event that would only track the compression step
for proc-macros and Rust dylibs. After the commit we measure the time for
acutally generating the crate metadata bytes.
Stabilize `const_constructor`
# Stabilization proposal
I propose that we stabilize `#![feature(const_constructor)]`.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61456
Version target: 1.40 (2019-11-05 => beta, 2019-12-19 => stable).
## What is stabilized
### User guide
Tuple struct and tuple variant constructors are now considered to be constant functions. As such a call expression where the callee has a tuple struct or variant constructor "function item" type can be called:
```rust
const fn make_options() {
// These already work because they are special cased:
Some(0);
(Option::Some)(1);
// These also work now:
let f = Option::Some;
f(2);
{Option::Some}(3);
<Option<_>>::Some(5);
}
```
### Motivation
Consistency with other `const fn`. Consistency between syntactic path forms.
This should also ensure that constructors implement `const Fn` traits and can be coerced to `const fn` function pointers, if they are introduced.
## Tests
* [ui/consts/const_constructor/const-construct-call.rs](0d75ab2293/src/test/ui/consts/const_constructor/const-construct-call.rs) - Tests various syntactic forms, use in both `const fn` and `const` items, and constructors in both the current and extern crates.
* [ui/consts/const_constructor/const_constructor_qpath.rs](1850dfcdab/src/test/ui/consts/const_constructor/const_constructor_qpath.rs) - Tests that type qualified paths to enum variants are also considered to be `const fn`.(#64247)
r? @oli-obk
Closes#61456
Closes #64247
Gather together usefulness tests
I took most tests that were testing only for match exhaustiveness, pattern refutability or match arm reachability, and put them in the same test folder. I found it helpful to have them all in the same place when working on the usefulness algorithm.
librustc_lexer: Enhance documentation
This PR enhances documentation state of the `librustc_lexer` (as initiative caused by [rustc-guide#474](https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-guide/issues/474)), by adding:
- Module documentation.
- Doc-comments (and a bit of usual comments) in non-obvious (as for me) places.
r? @petrochenkov
cc @Centril
Stabilize `Option::flatten`
- PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/60256
- Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/60258
@elahn
> I was trying to `flat_map()` and found `map().flatten()` does the trick. This has been on nightly for 4 months, can we stabilise it?
@ethanboxx
> @Centril Helped me get this merged. What is the stabilization process?
@Centril
> @ethanboxx I'd just file a PR to stabilize it and we'll ask T-libs to FCP.
So here I am.
I am was unsure what number to put in `since = "-"` so I copied what someone had done in a recent PR.
I took most tests that were testing only for match exhaustiveness,
pattern refutability or match arm reachability, and put them in
the same test folder.
