rustdoc: Only look at blanket impls in `get_blanket_impls`
The idea here is that all the work in 16156fb278/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/trait_def.rs (L172-L186) doesn't matter for `get_blanket_impls` - Rustdoc will already pick up on those blocks when it documents the item.
Run LLVM coverage instrumentation passes before optimization passes
This matches the behavior of Clang and allows us to remove several
hacks which were needed to ensure functions weren't optimized away
before reaching the instrumentation pass.
Fixes#83429
cc `@richkadel`
r? `@tmandry`
Don't duplicate the extern providers once for each crate
This should give a small perf improvement for small crates by avoiding a memcpy of a pretty big struct for each loaded crate. In addition would be useful for replacing the sequential `CrateNum` everywhere with the hash based `StableCrateId` introduced in #81635, which would allow avoiding remapping of `CrateNum`'s when loading crate metadata. While this PR is not strictly needed for that, it is necessary to prevent a performance loss due to it.
I think this duplication was done in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/40008 (which introduced the query system) to make it possible to compile multiple crates in a single session in the future. I think this is unlikely to be implemented any time soon. In addition this PR can easily be reverted if necessary to implement this.
When the problem for a method not being found in its receiver is due to
arbitrary self-types, we don't want to mention importing or implementing
the trait, instead we suggest wrapping.
This matches the behavior of Clang and allows us to remove several
hacks which were needed to ensure functions weren't optimized away
before reaching the instrumentation pass.
There isn't currently a good reviewer for these, and I don't want to
remove things that will just be added again. I plan to make a separate
PR for these changes so the rest of the cleanup can land.
unaligned_references: align(N) fields in packed(N) structs are fine
This removes some false positives from the unaligned_references lint: in a `repr(packed(2))` struct, fields of alignment 2 (and less) are guaranteed to be properly aligned, so we do not have to consider them "disaligned".
rustc_target: Avoid unwraps when adding linker flags
These `unwrap`s assume that some linker flags were already added by `*_base::opts()` methods, but that's doesn't necessarily remain the case when we are reducing the number of flags hardcoded in targets, as https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83587 shows.
r? `@nagisa`
- Add back various diagnostic methods on `Session`.
It seems unfortunate to duplicate these in so many places, but in the
meantime, making the API inconsistent between `Session` and `Diagnostic`
also seems unfortunate.
- Add back TyCtxtAt methods
These will hopefully be used in the near future.
- Add back `with_const`, it would need to be added soon after anyway.
- Add back `split()` and `get_mut()`, they're useful.
- Add back `HirIdVec`, with a comment that it will soon be used.
- Add back `*_region` functions, with a comment they may soon be used.
- Remove `-Z borrowck_stats` completely. It didn't do anything.
- Remove `make_nop` completely.
- Add back `current_loc`, which is used by an out-of-tree tool.
- Fix style nits
- Remove `AtomicCell` with `cfg(parallel_compiler)` for consistency.
Found with https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer.
Dubious changes:
- Is anyone else using rustc_apfloat? I feel weird completely deleting
x87 support.
- Maybe some of the dead code in rustc_data_structures, in case someone
wants to use it in the future?
- Don't change rustc_serialize
I plan to scrap most of the json module in the near future (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/418) and fixing the
tests needed more work than I expected.
TODO: check if any of the comments on the deleted code should be kept.
linker: Use `--as-needed` by default when linker supports it
Do it in a centralized way in `link.rs` instead of individual target specs.
Majority of relevant target specs were already passing it.
resolve: Partially unify early and late scope-relative identifier resolution
Reuse `early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` instead of a chunk of code in `resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` doing the same job.
`early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope`/`visit_scopes` had to be slightly extended to be able to 1) start from a specific module instead of the current parent scope and 2) report one deprecation lint.
`early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` still doesn't support walking through "ribs", that part is left in `resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` (moreover, I'm pretty sure it's buggy, but that's a separate issue, cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/52389 at least).
Always preserve `None`-delimited groups in a captured `TokenStream`
Previously, we would silently remove any `None`-delimiters when
capturing a `TokenStream`, 'flattenting' them to their inner tokens.
This was not normally visible, since we usually have
`TokenKind::Interpolated` (which gets converted to a `None`-delimited
group during macro invocation) instead of an actual `None`-delimited
group.
However, there are a couple of cases where this becomes visible to
proc-macros:
1. A cross-crate `macro_rules!` macro has a `None`-delimited group
stored in its body (as a result of being produced by another
`macro_rules!` macro). The cross-crate `macro_rules!` invocation
can then expand to an attribute macro invocation, which needs
to be able to see the `None`-delimited group.
2. A proc-macro can invoke an attribute proc-macro with its re-collected
input. If there are any nonterminals present in the input, they will
get re-collected to `None`-delimited groups, which will then get
captured as part of the attribute macro invocation.
Both of these cases are incredibly obscure, so there hopefully won't be
any breakage. This change will allow more agressive 'flattenting' of
nonterminals in #82608 without losing `None`-delimited groups.
Add function core::iter::zip
This makes it a little easier to `zip` iterators:
```rust
for (x, y) in zip(xs, ys) {}
// vs.
for (x, y) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys) {}
```
You can `zip(&mut xs, &ys)` for the conventional `iter_mut()` and
`iter()`, respectively. This can also support arbitrary nesting, where
it's easier to see the item layout than with arbitrary `zip` chains:
```rust
for ((x, y), z) in zip(zip(xs, ys), zs) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in zip(xs, zip(ys, zs)) {}
// vs.
for ((x, y), z) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys).zip(xz) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in xs.into_iter().zip((ys.into_iter().zip(xz)) {}
```
It may also format more nicely, especially when the first iterator is a
longer chain of methods -- for example:
```rust
iter::zip(
trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
)
// vs.
trait_ref
.substs
.types()
.skip(1)
.zip(impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1))
```
This replaces the tuple-pair `IntoIterator` in #78204.
There is prior art for the utility of this in [`itertools::zip`].
[`itertools::zip`]: https://docs.rs/itertools/0.10.0/itertools/fn.zip.html
update array missing `IntoIterator` msg
fixes#82602
r? ```@estebank``` do you know whether we can use the expr span in `rustc_on_unimplemented`? The label isn't too great rn
make unaligned_references future-incompat lint warn-by-default
and also remove the safe_packed_borrows lint that it replaces.
`std::ptr::addr_of!` has hit beta now and will hit stable in a month, so I propose we start fixing https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27060 for real: creating a reference to a field of a packed struct needs to eventually become a hard error; this PR makes it a warn-by-default future-incompat lint. (The lint already existed, this just raises its default level.) At the same time I removed the corresponding code from unsafety checking; really there's no reason an `unsafe` block should make any difference here.
For references to packed fields outside `unsafe` blocks, this means `unaligned_refereces` replaces the previous `safe_packed_borrows` warning with a link to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82523 (and no more talk about unsafe blocks making any difference). So behavior barely changes, the warning is just worded differently. For references to packed fields inside `unsafe` blocks, this PR shows a new future-incompat warning.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/46043 because that lint no longer exists.
combine: stop eagerly evaluating consts
`super_relate_consts` eagerly evaluates constants which doesn't seem too great.
I now also finally understand why all of the unused substs test passed. The reason being
that we just evaluated the constants in `super_relate_consts` 😆
While this change isn't strictly necessary as evaluating consts here doesn't hurt, it still feels a lot cleaner to do it this way
r? `@oli-obk` `@nikomatsakis`
