Add an internal lint that warns when accessing untracked data
Some methods access data that is not tracked by the query system and should be used with caution. As suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128815#issuecomment-2275488683, in this PR I propose a lint (modeled on the `potential_query_instability` lint) that warns when using some specially-annotatted functions.
I can't tell myself if this lint would be that useful, compared to renaming `Steal::is_stolen` to `is_stolen_untracked`. This would depend on whether there are other functions we'd want to lint like this. So far it seems they're called `*_untracked`, which may be clear enough.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Don't Suggest Labeling `const` and `unsafe` Blocks
Fixes#128604
Previously, both anonymous constant blocks (E.g. The labeled block
inside `['_'; 'block: { break 'block 1 + 2; }]`) and inline const
blocks (E.g. `const { ... }`) were considered to be the same
kind of blocks. This caused the compiler to incorrectly suggest
labeling both the blocks when only anonymous constant blocks can be
labeled.
This PR adds an other enum variant to `Context` so that both the
blocks can be handled appropriately.
Also, adds some doc comments and removes unnecessary `&mut` in a
couple of places.
Implement a first version of RFC 3525: struct target features
This PR is an attempt at implementing https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3525, behind a feature gate `struct_target_features`.
There's obviously a few tasks that ought to be done before this is merged; in no particular order:
- add proper error messages
- add tests
- create a tracking issue for the RFC
- properly serialize/deserialize the new target_features field in `rmeta` (assuming I even understood that correctly :-))
That said, as I am definitely not a `rustc` expert, I'd like to get some early feedback on the overall approach before fixing those things (and perhaps some pointers for `rmeta`...), hence this early PR :-)
Here's an example piece of code that I have been using for testing - with the new code, the calls to intrinsics get correctly inlined:
```rust
#![feature(struct_target_features)]
use std::arch::x86_64::*;
/*
// fails to compile
#[target_feature(enable = "avx")]
struct Invalid(u32);
*/
#[target_feature(enable = "avx")]
struct Avx {}
#[target_feature(enable = "sse")]
struct Sse();
/*
// fails to compile
extern "C" fn bad_fun(_: Avx) {}
*/
/*
// fails to compile
#[inline(always)]
fn inline_fun(_: Avx) {}
*/
trait Simd {
fn do_something(&self);
}
impl Simd for Avx {
fn do_something(&self) {
unsafe {
println!("{:?}", _mm256_setzero_ps());
}
}
}
impl Simd for Sse {
fn do_something(&self) {
unsafe {
println!("{:?}", _mm_setzero_ps());
}
}
}
struct WithAvx {
#[allow(dead_code)]
avx: Avx,
}
impl Simd for WithAvx {
fn do_something(&self) {
unsafe {
println!("{:?}", _mm256_setzero_ps());
}
}
}
#[inline(never)]
fn dosomething<S: Simd>(simd: &S) {
simd.do_something();
}
fn main() {
/*
// fails to compile
Avx {};
*/
if is_x86_feature_detected!("avx") {
let avx = unsafe { Avx {} };
dosomething(&avx);
dosomething(&WithAvx { avx });
}
if is_x86_feature_detected!("sse") {
dosomething(&unsafe { Sse {} })
}
}
```
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129107
add repr to the allowlist for naked functions
Fixes#129412 (combining unstable features #90957 (`#![feature(naked_functions)]`) and #82232 (`#![feature(fn_align)]`)
rustdoc: clean up tuple <-> primitive conversion docs
This adds a minor missing feature to `fake_variadic`, so that it can render `impl From<(T,)> for [T; 1]` correctly.
Use cnum for extern crate data key
Noticed this when fixing #129184. I still have yet to put up a fix for that (mostly because I'm too lazy to minimize a test, that will come soon though).
Emit an error for invalid use of the linkage attribute
fixes#128486
Currently, the use of the linkage attribute for Mod, Impl,... is incorrectly permitted. This PR will correct this issue by generating errors, and I've also added some UI test cases for it.
Related: #128552.
Shrink `TyKind::FnPtr`.
By splitting the `FnSig` within `TyKind::FnPtr` into `FnSigTys` and `FnHeader`, which can be packed more efficiently. This reduces the size of the hot `TyKind` type from 32 bytes to 24 bytes on 64-bit platforms. This reduces peak memory usage by a few percent on some benchmarks. It also reduces cache misses and page faults similarly, though this doesn't translate to clear cycles or wall-time improvements on CI.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Use more slice patterns inside the compiler
Nothing super noteworthy. Just replacing the common 'fragile' pattern of "length check followed by indexing or unwrap" with slice patterns for legibility and 'robustness'.
r? ghost
By splitting the `FnSig` within `TyKind::FnPtr` into `FnSigTys` and
`FnHeader`, which can be packed more efficiently. This reduces the size
of the hot `TyKind` type from 32 bytes to 24 bytes on 64-bit platforms.
This reduces peak memory usage by a few percent on some benchmarks. It
also reduces cache misses and page faults similarly, though this doesn't
translate to clear cycles or wall-time improvements on CI.
Emit an error for invalid use of the `#[no_sanitize]` attribute
fixes#128487.
Currently, the use of the `#[no_sanitize]` attribute for Mod, Impl,... is incorrectly permitted. This PR will correct this issue by generating errors, and I've also added some UI test cases for it.
Referenced #128458. As far as I know, the `#[no_sanitize]` attribute can only be used with functions, so I changed that part to `Fn` and `Method` using `check_applied_to_fn_or_method`. However, I couldn't find explicit documentation on this, so I could be mistaken...
PR #128581 introduced an assertion that all builtin attributes are
actually checked via `CheckAttrVisitor` and aren't accidentally usable
on completely unrelated HIR nodes. Unfortunately, the check had
correctness problems.
The match on attribute path segments looked like
```rust,ignore
[sym::should_panic] => /* check is implemented */
match BUILTIN_ATTRIBUTE_MAP.get(name) {
// checked below
Some(BuiltinAttribute { type_: AttributeType::CrateLevel, .. }) => {}
Some(_) => {
if !name.as_str().starts_with("rustc_") {
span_bug!(
attr.span,
"builtin attribute {name:?} not handled by `CheckAttrVisitor`"
)
}
}
None => (),
}
```
However, it failed to account for edge cases such as an attribute whose:
1. path segments *starts* with a builtin attribute such as
`should_panic`
2. which does not start with `rustc_`, and
3. is also an `AttributeType::Normal` attribute upon registration with
the builtin attribute map
These conditions when all satisfied cause the span bug to be issued for e.g.
`#[should_panic::skip]` because the `[sym::should_panic]` arm is not matched (since it's
`[sym::should_panic, sym::skip]`).
See <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128622>.
Assert that all attributes are actually checked via `CheckAttrVisitor` and aren't accidentally usable on completely unrelated HIR nodes
``@oli-obk's`` #128444 with unreachable case removed to avoid that PR bitrotting away.
Based on #128402.
This PR will make adding a new attribute ICE on any use of that attribute unless it gets a handler added in `rustc_passes::CheckAttrVisitor`.
r? ``@nnethercote`` (since you were the reviewer of the original PR)
Attribute checking simplifications
remove an unused boolean and then merge two big matches into one
I was reviewing some attributes and realized we don't really check this list against the list of builtin attributes, so we "may" totally be missing some attributes that we should be checking (like the `coroutine` attribute, which you can just apply to random stuff)
```rust
#![feature(coroutines)]
#[coroutine]
struct Foo;
```
just compiles for example. Unless we check that the fallthrough match arm is never reached for builtin attributes, we're just going to keep forgetting to add them here, too. I can do that without the changes in this PR, but it seemed like a nice cleanup
