Replace some instances of FxHashMap/FxHashSet with stable alternatives (mostly in rustc_hir and rustc_ast_lowering)
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/533. We should be getting close to being able to remove the HashStable impl of HashMap.
Add new tier 3 aarch64-apple-watchos target
Apple Xcode 14/15 releases add a new apple watchos target architecture arm64 out of arm64_32 and armv7k, now add a new tier 3 target support for this target.
### Tier 3 Target Requirements
Adds support for Apple WatchOS aarch64-apple-watchos target.
Below are details on how this target meets the requirements for tier 3:
> tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
`@leohowell` has volunteered to be the target maintainer. I am also happy to help if a second maintainer is required.
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important even for a tier 3 target.
Uses the same naming as the LLVM target, and the same convention as other Apple targets.
> Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if the name of the target makes people extremely likely to form incorrect beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to disambiguate it.
I don't believe there is any ambiguity here.
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.
I don't see any legal issues here.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
> The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements.
> If the target supports building host tools (such as rustc or cargo), those host tools must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries, other than ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other binaries built for the target. For instance, rustc built for the target may depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library, but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
> Targets should not require proprietary (non-FOSS) components to link a functional binary or library.
> "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous" legal/licensing terms include but are not limited to: non-disclosure requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms, requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its developers or users.
I see no issues with any of the above.
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.
> This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
Only relevant to those making approval decisions.
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
core and alloc can be used. std support will be added in a subsequent PR.
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Use --target= option to cross compile, just like any target. Tests can be run using the WatchOS simulator (see https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/running-your-app-in-the-simulator-or-on-a-device).
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via `@)` to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.
> Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications.
I don't foresee this being a problem.
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target.
> In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
No other targets should be affected by the pull request.
r? compiler-team
Desugar `yield` in `async gen` correctly, ensure `gen` always returns unit
1. Ensure `async gen` blocks desugar `yield $expr` to `task_context = yield async_gen_ready($expr)`. Previously we were not assigning the `task_context` correctly, meaning that `yield` expressions in async generators returned type `ResumeTy` instead of `()`, and that we were not storing the `task_context` (which is probably unsound if we were reading the old task-context which has an invalidated borrow or something...)
2. Ensure that all `(async?) gen` blocks and `(async?) gen` fns return unit. Previously we were only checking this for `gen fn`, meaning that `gen {}` and `async gen {}` and `async gen fn` were allowed to return values that weren't unit. This is why #119058 was an ICE rather than an E0308.
Fixes#119058.
Check `FnPtr`/`FnDef` built-in fn traits correctly with effects
1. Teach the (old) trait solver how to handle the constness for built-in impls of the `Fn*` family of traits. This unfortunately doesn't support const closures just yet.
2. Fix the `const_eval_select`. It turns out that the `where` clause bounds on `const_eval_select` force the effect parameter for both fndefs to be `true` -- with effects, we will leave off any explicit where clauses and register these obligations manually.
I can elaborate on (2.) if you think it needs a better explanation!
r? fee1-dead
Fix ICE `ProjectionKinds Deref and Field were mismatched`
Fix#118144
Removed the check that ICEd if the sequence of projection kinds were different across captures. Instead we now sort based only on `Field` projection kinds.
Properly reject `default` on free const items
Fixes#117791.
Technically speaking, this is a breaking change but I doubt it will lead to any real-world regressions (maybe in some macro-trickery crates?). Doing a crater run probably isn't worth it.
Add better ICE messages for some undescriptive panics
Add some better messages at some panics
re: #118955
I took a look at some others but either was not able to figure out what they did, or it was unclear what they should say instead. For example in the query system whether each time a poisoned value is matched upon if they should all just call `FatalError.raise()`
[AIX] Fix XCOFF metadata
#118344 accidentally changed the way to get metadata from XCOFF file and broken our internal CI.
This PR reverts part of #118344 .
coverage: Skip instrumenting a function if no spans were extracted from MIR
The immediate symptoms of #118643 were fixed by #118666, but some users reported that their builds now encounter another coverage-related ICE:
```
error: internal compiler error: compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/coverageinfo/mapgen.rs:98:17: A used function should have had coverage mapping data but did not: (...)
```
I was able to reproduce at least one cause of this error: if no relevant spans could be extracted from a function, but the function contains `CoverageKind::SpanMarker` statements, then codegen still thinks the function is instrumented and complains about the fact that it has no coverage spans.
This PR prevents that from happening in two ways:
- If we didn't extract any relevant spans from MIR, skip instrumenting the entire function and don't create a `FunctionCoverateInfo` for it.
- If coverage codegen sees a `CoverageKind::SpanMarker` statement, skip it early and avoid creating `func_coverage`.
---
Fixes#118850.
Remove unnecessary constness from ProjectionCandidate
Constness in an item bound will be represented by an effect param, so no need to record constness here.
r? fee1-dead
fix: Overlapping spans in delimited meta-vars
Closes#118786
Delimited meta-vars inside of MBE's spans were set to have the same opening and closing position resulting in an ICE when debug assertions were enabled and an error was present in the templated code.
This ensures that the spans do not overlap, whilst still having the spans point at the usage of the meta-var inside the macro definition.
It includes a regression test.
🖤
More expressions correctly are marked to end with curly braces
Fixes#118859, and replaces the mentioned match statement with an exhaustive list, so that this code doesn't get overlooked in the future
