Like #130865 did for the standard library, we can use `&raw` in the
compiler now that stage0 supports it. Also like the other issue, I did
not make any doc or test changes at this time.
Bump stage0 to beta-2024-09-22 and rustfmt to nightly-2024-09-22
I'm doing this to apply the changes to version sorting (https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/pull/6284) that have occurred since rustfmt last upgraded (and a few other miscellaneous changes, like changes to expression overflowing: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/pull/6260). Eagerly updating rustfmt and formatting-the-world will ideally move some of the pressure off of the beta bump which will happen at the beginning of the next release cycle.
You can verify this is correct by checking out the changes, reverting the last commit, reapplying them, and diffing the changes:
```
git fetch git@github.com:compiler-errors/rust.git bump
git checkout -b bump FETCH_HEAD
git reset --hard HEAD~5
./x.py fmt --all
git diff FETCH_HEAD
# ignore the changes to stage0, and rustfmt.toml,
# and test file changes in rustdoc-js-std, run-make.
```
Or just take my word for it? Up to the reviewer.
r? release
deprecate -Csoft-float because it is unsound (and not fixable)
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129893 for details. The general sentiment there seems to be that this flag has no use and sound alternatives exist, so let's add this warning and see if anyone out there disagrees.
Also show a different warning on targets where it does nothing (as documented since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/36261): it seems to correspond to `-mfloat-abi` in GCC/clang, which is an ARM-specific option. To be really sure it does nothing, only forward the flag to LLVM for eabihf targets. This should not change behavior but makes me sleep better ;)
Add `#[warn(unreachable_pub)]` to a bunch of compiler crates
By default `unreachable_pub` identifies things that need not be `pub` and tells you to make them `pub(crate)`. But sometimes those things don't need any kind of visibility. So they way I did these was to remove the visibility entirely for each thing the lint identifies, and then add `pub(crate)` back in everywhere the compiler said it was necessary. (Or occasionally `pub(super)` when context suggested that was appropriate.) Tedious, but results in more `pub` removal.
There are plenty more crates to do but this seems like enough for a first PR.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Make create_dll_import_lib easier to implement
This will make it easier to implement raw-dylib support in cg_clif and cg_gcc. This PR doesn't yet include an create_dll_import_lib implementation for cg_clif as I need to correctly implement dllimport in cg_clif first before raw-dylib can work at all with cg_clif.
Required for https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc_codegen_cranelift/issues/1345
When an archive fails to build, print the path
Currently the output on failure is as follows:
Compiling block-buffer v0.10.4
Compiling crypto-common v0.1.6
Compiling digest v0.10.7
Compiling sha2 v0.10.8
Compiling xz2 v0.1.7
error: failed to build archive: No such file or directory
error: could not compile `bootstrap` (lib) due to 1 previous error
Change this to print which file is being constructed, to give some hint about what is going on.
error: failed to build archive at `path/to/output`: No such file or directory
Sync ar_archive_writer to LLVM 18.1.3
From LLVM 15.0.0-rc3. This adds support for COFF archives containing Arm64EC object files and has various fixes for AIX big archive files.
Currently the output on failure is as follows:
Compiling block-buffer v0.10.4
Compiling crypto-common v0.1.6
Compiling digest v0.10.7
Compiling sha2 v0.10.8
Compiling xz2 v0.1.7
error: failed to build archive: No such file or directory
error: could not compile `bootstrap` (lib) due to 1 previous error
Print which file is being constructed to give some hint about what is
going on.
Since this codegen flag now only controls LLVM-generated comments rather than
all assembly comments, make the name more accurate (and also match Clang).
Deprecate no-op codegen option `-Cinline-threshold=...`
This deprecates `-Cinline-threshold` since using it has no effect. This has been the case since the new LLVM pass manager started being used, more than 2 years ago.
Recommend using `-Cllvm-args=--inline-threshold=...` instead.
Closes#89742 which is E-help-wanted.
This deprecates `-Cinline-threshold` since using it has no effect. This
has been the case since the new LLVM pass manager started being used,
more than 2 years ago.
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125263 (rust-lld: fallback to rustc's sysroot if there's no path to the linker in the target sysroot)
- #125345 (rustc_codegen_llvm: add support for writing summary bitcode)
- #125362 (Actually use TAIT instead of emulating it)
- #125412 (Don't suggest adding the unexpected cfgs to the build-script it-self)
- #125445 (Migrate `run-make/rustdoc-with-short-out-dir-option` to `rmake.rs`)
- #125452 (Cleanup check-cfg handling in core and std)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
If we don't do this, some versions of LLVM (at least 17, experimentally)
will double-emit some error messages, which is how I noticed this. Given
that it seems to be costing some extra work, let's only request the
summary bitcode production if we'll actually bother writing it down,
otherwise skip it.
Typical uses of ThinLTO don't have any use for this as a standalone
file, but distributed ThinLTO uses this to make the linker phase more
efficient. With clang you'd do something like `clang -flto=thin
-fthin-link-bitcode=foo.indexing.o -c foo.c` and then get both foo.o
(full of bitcode) and foo.indexing.o (just the summary or index part of
the bitcode). That's then usable by a two-stage linking process that's
more friendly to distributed build systems like bazel, which is why I'm
working on this area.
I talked some to @teresajohnson about naming in this area, as things
seem to be a little confused between various blog posts and build
systems. "bitcode index" and "bitcode summary" tend to be a little too
ambiguous, and she tends to use "thin link bitcode" and "minimized
bitcode" (which matches the descriptions in LLVM). Since the clang
option is thin-link-bitcode, I went with that to try and not add a new
spelling in the world.
Per @dtolnay, you can work around the lack of this by using `lld
--thinlto-index-only` to do the indexing on regular .o files of
bitcode, but that is a bit wasteful on actions when we already have all
the information in rustc and could just write out the matching minimized
bitcode. I didn't test that at all in our infrastructure, because by the
time I learned that I already had this patch largely written.
