Simplify typeck/primary_body_of, fix comment to match return signature
Hi, new contributor here! I'm carefully reading through the various modules just to learn. I noticed this function, `primary_body_of`, which has gone through a couple of refactors over time, adding new `Option`s to its returned tuple. Observations:
1. the `fn`'s documentation was not all up to date with the the current return signature.
2. `FnHeader` and `FnDecl` are always both `Some` or `None`. So I figured it might just return a reference to the full `hir::FnSig`, for simplicity and more precise typing. It's a pure refactor.
I'm learning better by working with code than just reading it, so here goes! If you want to avoid pure refactor PRs that don't really fix anything, I can revert the code change to only update the comment instead.
encode `generics_of` for fields and ty params
Fixes#87674Fixes#87603
ICE was caused by calling `generics_of` on a `DefId` without any `generics_of` results. This was happening when we call `generics_of` on parent `DefId`s of an unevaluated const when we evaluate it.
r? `@lcnr`
PassWrapper: handle move of OptimizationLevel class out of PassBuilder
This is the first build break of the LLVM 14 cycle, and was caused by
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107025. Mercifully an easy fix.
Move naked function ABI check to its own lint
This check was previously categorized under the lint named
`UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`. That lint is future incompatible and will
be turned into an error in a future release. However, as defined in the
Constrained Naked Functions RFC, this check should only be a warning.
This is because it is possible for a naked function to be implemented in
such a way that it does not break even the undefined ABI. For example, a
`jmp` to a `const`.
Therefore, this patch defines a new lint named
`UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI` which contains just this single check.
Unlike `UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`, `UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI`
will not be converted to an error in the future.
rust-lang/rfcs#2774rust-lang/rfcs#2972
Prepare call/invoke for opaque pointers
Rather than relying on `getPointerElementType()` from LLVM function
pointers, we now pass the function type explicitly when building `call`
or `invoke` instructions.
Hide allocator details from TryReserveError
I think there's [no need for TryReserveError to carry detailed information](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48043#issuecomment-825139280), but I wouldn't want that issue to delay stabilization of the `try_reserve` feature.
So I'm proposing to stabilize `try_reserve` with a `TryReserveError` as an opaque structure, and if needed, expose error details later.
This PR moves the `enum` to an unstable inner `TryReserveErrorKind` that lives under a separate feature flag. `TryReserveErrorKind` could possibly be left as an implementation detail forever, and the `TryReserveError` get methods such as `allocation_size() -> Option<usize>` or `layout() -> Option<Layout>` instead, or the details could be dropped completely to make try-reserve errors just a unit struct, and thus smaller and cheaper.
Sync rustc_codegen_cranelift
05677b6bd6 removes two assertions that should have been removed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87515. They are no longer correct and trigger while compiling the sysroot.
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` label +A-codegen +A-cranelift +T-compiler
Remove special case for statement `NodeId` assignment
We now let `noop_flat_map_stmt` assign `NodeId`s (via `visit_id`),
just as we do for other AST nodes.
Add hint for unresolved associated trait items if the trait has a single item
This PR introduces a special-cased hint for unresolved trait items paths. It is shown if:
- the path was not resolved to any existing trait item
- and no existing trait item's name was reasonably close with regard to edit distance
- and the trait only has a single item in the corresponding namespace
I didn't know where I should put tests, therefore so far I just managed to bless two existing tests. I would be glad for hints where should tests for a hint like this be created, how should they be named (with reference to the original issue?) and what tests should I create (is it enough to test it just for types? or create separate tests also for functions and constants?).
It could also be turned into a machine applicable suggestion I suppose.
This is my first `rustc` PR, so please go easy on me :)
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87638
Fix overflow in rustc happening if the `err_count()` is reduced in a stage.
This can happen if stashed diagnostics are removed or replaced with fewer errors. The semantics stay the same if built without overflow checks. Fixes#84219.
Background: I came across this independently by running `RUSTFLAGS="-C overflow-checks=on" ./x.py test`. Fixing this will allow us to move on and find further overflow errors with testing or fuzzing.
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #87561 (thread set_name haiku implementation.)
- #87715 (Add long error explanation for E0625)
- #87727 (explicit_generic_args_with_impl_trait: fix min expected number of generics)
- #87742 (Validate FFI-safety warnings on naked functions)
- #87756 (Add back -Zno-profiler-runtime)
- #87759 (Re-use std::sealed::Sealed in os/linux/process.)
- #87760 (Promote `aarch64-apple-ios-sim` to Tier 2)
- #87770 (permit drop impls with generic constants in where clauses)
- #87780 (alloc: Use intra doc links for the reserve function)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
permit drop impls with generic constants in where clauses
Fixes#79248
`==` is not sufficient to check for equality between unevaluated consts which causes the above issue because the const in `[(); N - 1]:` on the impl and the const in `[(); N - 1]:` on the struct def are not seen as equal. Any predicate that can contain an unevaluated const cant use `==` here as it will cause us to incorrectly emit an error.
I dont know much about chalk but it seems like we ought to be relating the `TypeWellFormedFromEnv` instead of `==` as it contains a `Ty` so I added that too...
r? ``````@lcnr``````
Add back -Zno-profiler-runtime
This was removed by #85284 in favor of `-Zprofiler-runtime=<name>`.However the suggested `-Zprofiler-runtime=None` doesn't work because`None` is treated as a crate name.
explicit_generic_args_with_impl_trait: fix min expected number of generics
Fixes#87718
The problem was that `synth_type_param_count` was already subtracted from `named_type_param_count`, so this ended up being subtracted again. This caused `expected_min` to overflow, and ultimately resulting in weird and wrong behaviour.
I've also added another test not present in the original issue but caused by the same bug.
Rather than relying on `getPointerElementType()` from LLVM function
pointers, we now pass the function type explicitly when building `call`
or `invoke` instructions.
Disable unused variable lint for naked functions
In most calling conventions, accessing function parameters may require
stack access. However, naked functions have no assembly prelude to set
up stack access. This is why naked functions may only contain a single
`asm!()` block. All parameter access is done inside the `asm!()` block,
so we cannot validate the liveness of the input parameters. Therefore,
we should disable the lint for naked functions.
rust-lang/rfcs#2774rust-lang/rfcs#2972
`@joshtriplett` `@Amanieu` `@haraldh`
Allow more "unknown argument" strings from linker
Some toolchains emit slightly different errors, e.g.
ppc-vle-gcc: error: unrecognized option '-no-pie'
rustc: Fill out remaining parts of C-unwind ABI
This commit intends to fill out some of the remaining pieces of the
C-unwind ABI. This has a number of other changes with it though to move
this design space forward a bit. Notably contained within here is:
* On `panic=unwind`, the `extern "C"` ABI is now considered as "may
unwind". This fixes a longstanding soundness issue where if you
`panic!()` in an `extern "C"` function defined in Rust that's actually
UB because the LLVM representation for the function has the `nounwind`
attribute, but then you unwind.
* Whether or not a function unwinds now mainly considers the ABI of the
function instead of first checking the panic strategy. This fixes a
miscompile of `extern "C-unwind"` with `panic=abort` because that ABI
can still unwind.
* The aborting stub for non-unwinding ABIs with `panic=unwind` has been
reimplemented. Previously this was done as a small tweak during MIR
generation, but this has been moved to a separate and dedicated MIR
pass. This new pass will, for appropriate functions and function
calls, insert a `cleanup` landing pad for any function call that may
unwind within a function that is itself not allowed to unwind. Note
that this subtly changes some behavior from before where previously on
an unwind which was caught-to-abort it would run active destructors in
the function, and now it simply immediately aborts the process.
* The `#[unwind]` attribute has been removed and all users in tests and
such are now using `C-unwind` and `#![feature(c_unwind)]`.
I think this is largely the last piece of the RFC to implement.
Unfortunately I believe this is still not stabilizable as-is because
activating the feature gate changes the behavior of the existing `extern
"C"` ABI in a way that has no replacement. My thinking for how to enable
this is that we add support for the `C-unwind` ABI on stable Rust first,
and then after it hits stable we change the behavior of the `C` ABI.
That way anyone straddling stable/beta/nightly can switch to `C-unwind`
safely.
In most calling conventions, accessing function parameters may require
stack access. However, naked functions have no assembly prelude to set
up stack access. This is why naked functions may only contain a single
`asm!()` block. All parameter access is done inside the `asm!()` block,
so we cannot validate the liveness of the input parameters. Therefore,
we should disable the lint for naked functions.
rust-lang/rfcs#2774rust-lang/rfcs#2972
This check was previously categorized under the lint named
`UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`. That lint is future incompatible and will
be turned into an error in a future release. However, as defined in the
Constrained Naked Functions RFC, this check should only be a warning.
This is because it is possible for a naked function to be implemented in
such a way that it does not break even the undefined ABI. For example, a
`jmp` to a `const`.
Therefore, this patch defines a new lint named
`UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI` which contains just this single check.
Unlike `UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`, `UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI`
will not be converted to an error in the future.
rust-lang/rfcs#2774rust-lang/rfcs#2972
Remove unnecessary trailing whitespace from error messages
Some error messages currently contain unnecessary trailing whitespace. There are some legitimate reasons for having trailing whitespace in the output, such as for uniform indentation of possibly-empty input lines, but the whitespace I have addressed here occurs in a line used only for spacing, and I see no reason why that should have trailing whitespace (spacing lines inserted in other places also don't have trailing whitespace).
I have also removed a superfluous call to `buffer.putc()`, which has no effect because the same character is already placed there by `draw_col_separator()`.
Use `git diff --ignore-space-at-eol` to see my changes; otherwise the diff is quite large due to the whitespace removed from expected outputs in `src/test/ui/`.
This was removed by #85284 in favor of -Zprofiler-runtime=<name>.
However the suggested -Zprofiler-runtime=None doesn't work because
"None" is treated as a crate name.
Allow labeled loops as value expressions for `break`
Fixes#86948. This is currently allowed:
```rust
return 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
break ('label: loop { break 'label 42; });
break 1 + 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
break 'outer 'inner: loop { break 'inner 42; };
```
But not this:
```rust
break 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
```
I have fixed this, so that the above now parses as an unlabeled break with a labeled loop as its value expression.
