patchable-function-entry: Add unstable compiler flag and attribute
Tracking issue: #123115
Add the -Z patchable-function-entry compiler flag and the #[patchable_function_entry(prefix_nops = m, entry_nops = n)] attribute.
Rebased and adjusted the canditate implementation to match changes in the RFC.
ast: Standardize visiting order
Order: ID, attributes, inner nodes in source order if possible, tokens, span.
Also always use exhaustive matching in visiting infra, and visit some discovered missing nodes.
Unlike https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125741 this shouldn't affect anything serious like `macro_rules` scopes.
coverage: Make `#[coverage(..)]` apply recursively to nested functions
This PR makes the (currently-unstable) `#[coverage(off)]` and `#[coverage(on)]` attributes apply recursively to all nested functions/closures, instead of just the function they are directly attached to.
Those attributes can now also be applied to modules and to impl/impl-trait blocks, where they have no direct effect, but will be inherited by all enclosed functions/closures/methods that don't override the inherited value.
---
Fixes#126625.
Fixes for 32-bit SPARC on Linux
This PR fixes a number of issues which previously prevented `rustc` from being built
successfully for 32-bit SPARC using the `sparc-unknown-linux-gnu` triplet.
In particular, it adds linking against `libatomic` where necessary, uses portable `AtomicU64`
for `rustc_data_structures` and rewrites the spec for `sparc_unknown_linux_gnu` to use
`TargetOptions` and replaces the previously used `-mv8plus` with the more portable
`-mcpu=v9 -m32`.
To make `rustc` build successfully, support for 32-bit SPARC needs to be added to the `object`
crate as well as the `nix` crate which I will be sending out later as well.
r? nagisa
Id, attributes, inner nodes in source order if possible, tokens, span.
Also always use exhaustive matching in visiting infra, and visit some missing nodes.
Remove more `PtrToPtr` casts in GVN
This addresses two things I noticed in MIR:
1. `NonNull::<T>::eq` does `(a as *mut T) == (b as *mut T)`, but it could just compare the `*const T`s, so this removes `PtrToPtr` casts that are on both sides of a pointer comparison, so long as they're not fat-to-thin casts.
2. `NonNull::<T>::addr` does `transmute::<_, usize>(p as *const ())`, but so long as `T: Thin` that cast doesn't do anything, and thus we can directly transmute the `*const T` instead.
r? mir-opt
Don't ICE during RPITIT refinement checking for resolution errors after normalization
#126670 shows a case where resolution errors after normalization can happen during RPITIT refinement checking. Our tests didn't reach this path before, and we explicitly ICEd until we had a test. We can now delay a bug since we're sure it is reachable and have the test from the isue.
The comment I added likely still needs more expert wordsmithing.
r? ``@compiler-errors`` who's making me work during vacation (j/k).
Fixes#126670
miri: make sure we can find link_section statics even for the local crate
Miri needs some way to iterate all the exported functions and "used" statics of all crates. For dependency crates, this already works fine since we can overwrite the query resonsible for computing `exported_symbols`, but it turns out for local binary crates this does not work: for binaries, `reachable_set` skips a lot of its logic and only checks `contains_extern_indicator()` and `RUSTC_STD_INTERNAL_SYMBOL`. Other flags like `CodegenFnAttrFlags::USED` are entirely ignored.
This PR proposes to use the same check, `has_custom_linkage`, in binaries that we already use to drive the main workqueue of the reachability recursive traversal. I have no idea why binaries used a slightly different check that ignores `USED` -- was that deliberate or does it just not matter most of the time?
Change E0369 to give note informations for foreign items.
Change E0369 to give note informations for foreign items.
Make it easy for developers to understand why the binop cannot be applied.
fixes#125631
Fix a span in `parse_ty_bare_fn`.
It currently goes one token too far.
Example: line 259 of `tests/ui/abi/compatibility.rs`:
```
test_abi_compatible!(fn_fn, fn(), fn(i32) -> i32);
```
This commit changes the span for the second element from `fn(),` to `fn()`, i.e. removes the extraneous comma.
This doesn't affect any tests. I found it while debugging some other code. Not a big deal but an easy fix so I figure it worth doing.
r? ``@spastorino``
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126618 (Mark assoc tys live only if the corresponding trait is live)
- #126746 (Deny `use<>` for RPITITs)
- #126868 (not use offset when there is not ends with brace)
- #126884 (Do not ICE when suggesting dereferencing closure arg)
- #126893 (Eliminate the distinction between PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN precedence level)
- #126915 (Don't suggest awaiting in closure patterns)
- #126943 (De-duplicate all consecutive native libs regardless of their options)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
It currently goes one token too far.
Example: line 259 of `tests/ui/abi/compatibility.rs`:
```
test_abi_compatible!(fn_fn, fn(), fn(i32) -> i32);
```
This commit changes the span for the second element from `fn(),` to
`fn()`, i.e. removes the extraneous comma.
Tweak `FlatPat::new` to avoid a temporarily-invalid state
It was somewhat confusing that the old constructor would create a `FlatPat` in a (possibly) non-simplified state, and then simplify its contents in-place.
So instead we now create its fields as local variables, perform simplification, and then create the struct afterwards.
This doesn't affect correctness, but is less confusing.
---
I've also included some semi-related comments that I made while trying to navigate this code.
Tweak a confusing comment in `create_match_candidates`
This comment was accurate at the time it was written, but various later changes reshuffled things in ways that caused the existing comment to become confusing.
I've therefore tried to clarify that *these* candidates are 1:1 with match arms, while also warning that that isn't the case in general.
Detect unused structs which derived Default
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Fixes#98871
`-Z patchable-function-entry` works like `-fpatchable-function-entry`
on clang/gcc. The arguments are total nop count and function offset.
See MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#704
De-duplicate all consecutive native libs regardless of their options
Address https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126913#issuecomment-2188184011 by no longer de-duplicating based on the "options" but by only looking at the generated link args, as to avoid consecutive libs that originated from different native-lib with different options (like `raw-dylib` on Windows) but isn't relevant for `--print=native-static-libs`.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
Don't suggest awaiting in closure patterns
Fixes#126903.
For
```rust
async fn do_async() {}
fn main() {
Some(do_async()).map(|()| {});
}
```
the error is now
```rust
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:4:27
|
4 | Some(do_async()).map(|()| {});
| ^^
| |
| expected future, found `()`
| expected due to this
|
= note: expected opaque type `impl Future<Output = ()>`
found unit type `()`
```
Ideally, if `main` were to be `async`, it should be
```rs
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:4:27
|
4 | Some(do_async()).map(|()| {});
| ^^
| |
| expected future, found `()`
| expected due to this
|
= note: expected opaque type `impl Future<Output = ()>`
found unit type `()`
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | Some(do_async().await).map(|()| {});
| ++++++
```
However, this would mean `FnCtx::check_pat_top` would have to be called with an `origin_expr` in `rustc_hir_typeck::check::check_fn`, and that expr would have to be somehow plumbed through `FnCtxt::check_expr_closure` and closure signature deduction. I'm willing to work on the plumbing but unsure how to start.
Eliminate the distinction between PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN precedence level
I have been tangling with precedence as part of porting some pretty-printer improvements from syn back to rustc (related to parenthesization of closures, returns, and breaks by the AST pretty-printer).
As far as I have been able to tell, there is no difference between the 2 different precedence levels that rustc identifies as `PREC_POSTFIX` (field access, square bracket index, question mark, method call) and `PREC_PAREN` (loops, if, paths, literals).
There are a bunch of places that look at either `prec < PREC_POSTFIX` or `prec >= PREC_POSTFIX`. But there is nothing that needs to distinguish PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN from one another.
d49994b060/compiler/rustc_ast/src/util/parser.rs (L236-L237)d49994b060/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/suggestions.rs (L2829)d49994b060/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/suggestions.rs (L1290)
In the interest of eliminating a distinction without a difference, this PR collapses these 2 levels down to 1.
There is exactly 1 case where an expression with PREC_POSTFIX precedence needs to be parenthesized in a location that an expression with PREC_PAREN would not, and that's when the receiver of ExprKind::MethodCall is ExprKind::Field. `x.f()` means a different thing than `(x.f)()`. But this does not justify having separate precedence levels because this special case in the grammar is not governed by precedence. Field access does not have "lower precedence than" method call syntax — you can tell because if it did, then `x.f[0].f()` wouldn't be able to have its unparenthesized field access in the receiver of a method call. Because this Field/MethodCall special case is not governed by precedence, it already requires special handling and is not affected by eliminating the PREC_POSTFIX precedence level.
d49994b060/compiler/rustc_ast_pretty/src/pprust/state/expr.rs (L217-L221)
Do not ICE when suggesting dereferencing closure arg
Account for `for` lifetimes when constructing closure to see if dereferencing the return value would be valid.
Fix#125634, fix#124563.
Deny `use<>` for RPITITs
Precise capturing `use<>` syntax is currently a no-op on RPITITs, since GATs have no variance, so all captured lifetimes are captured invariantly.
We don't currently *need* to support `use<>` on RPITITs, since `use<>` is initially intended for migrating RPIT *overcaptures* from edition 2021->2024, but since RPITITs currently capture all in-scope lifetimes, we'll never need to write `use<>` on an RPITIT.
Eventually, though, it would be desirable to support precise capturing on RPITITs, since RPITITs overcapturing by default can be annoying to some folks. But let's separate that (which will likely require some delicate types team work for adding variances to GATs and adjusting the refinement rules) from the stabilization of the feature for edition 2024.
r? oli-obk cc ``@traviscross``
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123432
