Add error message suggestion for missing noreturn in naked function
I had to google the syntax for inline asm's `noreturn` option when I got this error earlier today, so I figured I'd save others the trouble and add the syntax/fix as a suggestion in the error.
Handle rustc_const_stable attribute in library feature collector
The library feature collector in [compiler/rustc_passes/src/lib_features.rs](551b4fa395/compiler/rustc_passes/src/lib_features.rs) has only been looking at `#[stable(…)]`, `#[unstable(…)]`, and `#[rustc_const_unstable(…)]` attributes, while ignoring `#[rustc_const_stable(…)]`. The consequences of this were:
- When any const feature got stabilized (changing one or more `rustc_const_unstable` to `rustc_const_stable`), users who had previously enabled that unstable feature using `#![feature(…)]` would get told "unknown feature", rather than rustc's nicer "the feature … has been stable since … and no longer requires an attribute to enable".
This can be seen in the way that https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93957#issuecomment-1079794660 failed after rebase:
```console
error[E0635]: unknown feature `const_ptr_offset`
--> $DIR/offset_from_ub.rs:1:35
|
LL | #![feature(const_ptr_offset_from, const_ptr_offset)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
- We weren't enforcing that a particular feature is either stable everywhere or unstable everywhere, and that a feature that has been stabilized has the same stabilization version everywhere, both of which we enforce for the other stability attributes.
This PR updates the library feature collector to handle `rustc_const_stable`, and fixes places in the standard library and test suite where `rustc_const_stable` was being used in a way that does not meet the rules for a stability attribute.
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #95032 (Clean up, categorize and sort unstable features in std.)
- #95260 (Better suggestions for `Fn`-family trait selection errors)
- #95293 (suggest wrapping single-expr blocks in square brackets)
- #95344 (Make `impl Debug for rustdoc::clean::Item` easier to read)
- #95388 (interpret: make isize::MAX the limit for dynamic value sizes)
- #95530 (rustdoc: do not show primitives and keywords as private)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
interpret: make isize::MAX the limit for dynamic value sizes
We are currently enforcing `data_layout.obj_size_bound()` as the maximal dynamic size of a Rust value (including for `size_of_val_raw`), but that does not match the docs.
In particular, Miri currently falsely says that this code has UB:
```rust
#![feature(layout_for_ptr)]
fn main() {
let size = isize::MAX as usize;
// Creating a raw slice of size isize::MAX and asking for its size is okay.
let s = std::ptr::slice_from_raw_parts(1usize as *const u8, size);
assert_eq!(size, unsafe { std::mem::size_of_val_raw(s) });
}
```
Better suggestions for `Fn`-family trait selection errors
1. Suppress suggestions to add `std::ops::Fn{,Mut,Once}` bounds when a type already implements `Fn{,Mut,Once}`
2. Add a note that points out that a type does in fact implement `Fn{,Mut,Once}`, but the arguments vary (either by number or by actual arguments)
3. Add a note that points out that a type does in fact implement `Fn{,Mut,Once}`, but not the right one (e.g. implements `FnMut`, but `Fn` is required).
Fixes#95147
Specialize infinite-type "insert some indirection" suggestion for Option
Suggest `Option<Box<_>>` instead of `Box<Option<_>>` for infinitely-recursive members of a struct.
Not sure if I can get the span of the generic subty of the Option so I can make this a `+++`-style suggestion. The current output is a tiny bit less fancy looking than the original suggestion.
Should I limit the specialization to just `Option<Box<TheOuterStruct>>`? Because right now it applies to all `Option` members in the struct that are returned by `Representability::SelfRecursive`.
Fixes#91402
r? `@estebank`
(since you wrote the original suggestion and are definitely most familiar with it!)
Make lowering pull-based
~Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90451~
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/88186
The current lowering code visits all the item-likes in the AST in order, and lowers them one by one.
This PR changes it to index the AST and then proceed to lowering on-demand. This is closer to the logic of query-based lowering.
allow large Size again
This basically reverts most of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80042, and instead does the panic in `bits()` with a `#[cold]` function to make sure it does not get inlined.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80042 added a comment about an invariant ("The top 3 bits are ALWAYS zero") that is not actually enforced, and if it were enforced that would be a problem for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95388. So I think we should not have that invariant, and I adjusted the code accordingly.
r? `@oli-obk` Cc `@sivadeilra`
