Avoid a `source_span` query when encoding Spans into query results
This avoids a `source_span` query when encoding `Span`s into query results. It's not sound to execute queries here as the query caches can be locked and the dep graph is no longer writable.
r? `@cjgillot`
rustdoc: Change syntax for anonymous functions set in JS
This function is not very useful in itself but it slightly reduces the JS size so it's always that I suppose... No changes in behaviour.
r? `@notriddle`
Fix sanitize/cfg.rs test
* Move needs-sanitizer conditions to specific revisions that require them (otherwise the conditions are mutually exclusive with needs-sanitizer-kcfi and test is always ignored).
* Add missing revisions
Improve "associated type not found" diagnostics
```rs
use core::ops::Deref;
fn foo<T>() where T: Deref<Output = u32> {}
```
Before:
```
error[E0220]: associated type `Output` not found for `Deref`
--> E0220.rs:5:28
|
5 | fn foo<T>() where T: Deref<Output = u32> {}
| ^^^^^^ associated type `Output` not found
```
After:
```
error[E0220]: associated type `Output` not found for `Deref`
--> E0220.rs:5:28
|
5 | fn foo<T>() where T: Deref<Output = u32> {}
| ^^^^^^ help: `Deref` has the following associated type: `Target`
```
---
`@rustbot` label +A-diagnostics +D-papercut
debuginfo: add compiler option to allow compressed debuginfo sections
LLVM already supports emitting compressed debuginfo. In debuginfo=full builds, the debug section is often a large amount of data, and it typically compresses very well (3x is not unreasonable.) We add a new knob to allow debuginfo to be compressed when the matching LLVM functionality is present. Like clang, if a known-but-disabled compression mechanism is requested, we disable compression and emit uncompressed debuginfo sections.
The API is different enough on older LLVMs we just pretend the support
is missing on LLVM older than 16.
Use the same DISubprogram for each instance of the same inlined function within a caller
# Issue Details:
The call to `panic` within a function like `Option::unwrap` is translated to LLVM as a `tail call` (as it will never return), when multiple calls to the same function like this are inlined LLVM will notice the common `tail call` block (i.e., loading the same panic string + location info and then calling `panic`) and merge them together.
When merging these instructions together, LLVM will also attempt to merge the debug locations as well, but this fails (i.e., debug info is dropped) as Rust emits a new `DISubprogram` at each inline site thus LLVM doesn't recognize that these are actually the same function and so thinks that there isn't a common debug location.
As an example of this, consider the following program:
```rust
#[no_mangle]
fn add_numbers(x: &Option<i32>, y: &Option<i32>) -> i32 {
let x1 = x.unwrap();
let y1 = y.unwrap();
x1 + y1
}
```
When building for x86_64 Windows using 1.72 it generates (note the lack of `.cv_loc` before the call to `panic`, thus it will be attributed to the same line at the `addq` instruction):
```llvm
.cv_loc 0 1 3 0 # src\lib.rs:3:0
addq $40, %rsp
retq
leaq .Lalloc_f570dea0a53168780ce9a91e67646421(%rip), %rcx
leaq .Lalloc_629ace53b7e5b76aaa810d549cc84ea3(%rip), %r8
movl $43, %edx
callq _ZN4core9panicking5panic17h12e60b9063f6dee8E
int3
```
# Fix Details:
Cache the `DISubprogram` emitted for each inlined function instance within a caller so that this can be reused if that instance is encountered again.
Ideally, we would also deduplicate child scopes and variables, however my attempt to do that with #114643 resulted in asserts when building for Linux (#115156) which would require some deep changes to Rust to fix (#115455).
Instead, when using an inlined function as a debug scope, we will also create a new child scope such that subsequent child scopes and variables do not collide (from LLVM's perspective).
After this change the above assembly now (with <https://reviews.llvm.org/D159226> as well) shows the `panic!` was inlined from `unwrap` in `option.rs` at line 935 into the current function in `lib.rs` at line 0 (line 0 is emitted since it is ambiguous which line to use as there were two inline sites that lead to this same code):
```llvm
.cv_loc 0 1 3 0 # src\lib.rs:3:0
addq $40, %rsp
retq
.cv_inline_site_id 6 within 0 inlined_at 1 0 0
.cv_loc 6 2 935 0 # library\core\src\option.rs:935:0
leaq .Lalloc_5f55955de67e57c79064b537689facea(%rip), %rcx
leaq .Lalloc_e741d4de8cb5801e1fd7a6c6795c1559(%rip), %r8
movl $43, %edx
callq _ZN4core9panicking5panic17hde1558f32d5b1c04E
int3
```
lto: load bitcode sections by name
Upstream change
llvm/llvm-project@6b539f5eb8 changed `isSectionBitcode` works and it now only respects `.llvm.lto` sections instead of also `.llvmbc`, which it says was never intended to be used for LTO. We instead load sections by name, and sniff for raw bitcode by hand.
This is an alternative approach to #115136, where we tried the same thing using the `object` crate, but it got too fraught to continue.
r? `@nikic`
`@rustbot` label: +llvm-main
Use `Freeze` for `SourceFile`
This uses the `Freeze` type in `SourceFile` to let accessing `external_src` and `lines` be lock-free.
Behavior of `add_external_src` is changed to set `ExternalSourceKind::AbsentErr` on a hash mismatch which matches the documentation. `ExternalSourceKind::Unneeded` was removed as it's unused.
Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115401.
Using `ld.lld` may have been clever, but that was getting the /system/
ld.lld, not one we may have built as part of building llvm. By using the
warning message coming directly from rustc we now correctly skip the
zlib and zstd tests when the support is missing.
LLVM already supports emitting compressed debuginfo. In debuginfo=full
builds, the debug section is often a large amount of data, and it
typically compresses very well (3x is not unreasonable.) We add a new
knob to allow debuginfo to be compressed when the matching LLVM
functionality is present. Like clang, if a known-but-disabled
compression mechanism is requested, we disable compression and emit
uncompressed debuginfo sections.
The API is different enough on older LLVMs we just pretend the support
is missing on LLVM older than 16.
Upstream change
llvm/llvm-project@6b539f5eb8 changed
`isSectionBitcode` works and it now only respects `.llvm.lto` sections
instead of also `.llvmbc`, which it says was never intended to be used
for LTO. We instead load sections by name, and sniff for raw bitcode by
hand.
r? @nikic
@rustbot label: +llvm-main
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #104299 (Clarify stability guarantee for lifetimes in enum discriminants)
- #115088 (Fix Step Skipping Caused by Using the `--exclude` Option)
- #115201 (rustdoc: list matching impls on type aliases)
- #115633 (Lint node for `PRIVATE_BOUNDS`/`PRIVATE_INTERFACES` is the item which names the private type)
- #115638 (`-Cllvm-args` usability improvement)
- #115643 (fix: return early when has tainted in mir-lint)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
* Move needs-sanitizer conditions to specific revisions that
require them (otherwise the conditions are mutually exclusive
with needs-sanitizer-kcfi and test is always ignored).
* Add missing revisions
fix: return early when has tainted in mir-lint
Fixes#115203
`a[..]` is of indeterminate size, it had been reported error during borrow check, therefore we skip the mir lint process.
`-Cllvm-args` usability improvement
fixes: #26338fixes: #115564
Two problems were found during playing with `-Cllvm-args`
1. When `llvm.link-shared` is set to `false` in `config.toml`, output of `rustc -C llvm-args='--help-list-hidden'` doesn't contain `--emit-dwarf-unwind` and `--emulated-tls`. When it is set to `true`, `rustc -C llvm-args='--help-list-hidden'` emits `--emit-dwarf-unwind`, but `--emulated-tls` is still missing.
2. Setting `-Cllvm-args=--emit-dwarf-unwind=always` doesn't take any effect, but `-Cllvm-args=-machine-outliner-reruns=3` does work.
### 1
Adding `RegisterCodeGenFlags` to register codegen flags fixed the first problem. `rustc -C llvm-args='--help-list-hidden'` emits full codegen flags including `--emit-dwarf-unwind` and `--emulated-tls`.
### 2
Constructing `TargetOptions` from `InitTargetOptionsFromCodeGenFlags` in `LLVMRustCreateTargetMachine` fixed the second problem. The `LLVMRustSetLLVMOptions` calls `ParseCommandLineOptions` which parses given `llvm-args`. For options like `machine-outliner-reruns`, it just works, since the codegen logic directly consumes the parsing result:
[machine-outliner-reruns register](0537f6354c/llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineOutliner.cpp (L114))
[machine-outliner-reruns consumption](0537f6354c/llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineOutliner.cpp (L1138))
But for flags defined in `TargetOptions` and `MCTargetOptions` to take effect, constructing them with `InitTargetOptionsFromCodeGenFlags` is essential, or the parsing result is just not consumed. Similar patterns can be observed in [lli](0537f6354c/llvm/tools/llc/llc.cpp (L494)), [llc](0537f6354c/llvm/tools/lli/lli.cpp (L517)), etc.
Lint node for `PRIVATE_BOUNDS`/`PRIVATE_INTERFACES` is the item which names the private type
The HIR that the `PRIVATE_BOUNDS` lint should be attached to is the item that has the *bounds*, not the private type. This PR also aligns this behavior with the `EXPORTED_PRIVATE_DEPENDENCIES` lint, which also requires putting the `allow` on the item that names the private type.
Fixes#115475
r? petrochenkov
Clarify stability guarantee for lifetimes in enum discriminants
Since `std::mem::Discriminant` erases lifetimes, it should be clarified that changing the concrete value of a lifetime parameter does not change the value of an enum discriminant for a given variant. This is useful as it guarantees that it is safe to transmute `Discriminant<Foo<'a>>` to `Discriminant<Foo<'b>>` for any combination of `'a` and `'b`. This also holds for type-generics as long as the type parameters do not change, e.g. `Discriminant<Foo<T, 'a>>` can be transmuted to `Discriminant<Foo<T, 'b>>`.
Side note: Is what I've written actually enough to imply soundness (or rather codify it), or should it specifically be spelled out that it's OK to transmute in the above way?
Add CL and CMD into to pdb debug info
Partial fix for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/96475
The Arg0 and CommandLineArgs of the MCTargetOptions cpp class are not set within bb548f9645/compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/PassWrapper.cpp (L378)
This causes LLVM to not neither output any compiler path (cl) nor the arguments that were used when invoking it (cmd) in the PDB file.
This fix adds the missing information to the target machine so LLVM can use it.
modify fuction clond() -> cloned()
optimize the code
Handle the problem that the pathset is empty and modify the judgment of the builder::tests::test_exclude_kind
Delete unnecessary judegment conditions
skip test for library/std duo to OOM in benches as library/alloc
Add FIXME for WASM32
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #115345 (MCP661: Move wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads target to Tier 2)
- #115604 (rustdoc: Render private fields in tuple struct as `/* private fields */`)
- #115624 (Print the path of a return-position impl trait in trait when `return_type_notation` is enabled)
- #115629 (Don't suggest dereferencing to unsized type)
- #115634 (Use `newtype_index` for `IntVid` and `FloatVid`.)
- #115649 (diagnostics: add test case for trait bounds diagnostic)
- #115655 (rustdoc: remove unused ID `mainThemeStyle`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
diagnostics: add test case for trait bounds diagnostic
Closes#82038
It was fixed by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89580, a wide-reaching obligation tracking improvement. This commit adds a test case.
Don't suggest dereferencing to unsized type
Rudimentary check that the self type is Sized. I don't really like any of this diagnostics code -- it's really messy and also really prone to false positives and negatives, but oh well.
Fixes#115569
Print the path of a return-position impl trait in trait when `return_type_notation` is enabled
When we're printing a return-position impl trait in trait, we usually just print it like an opaque. This is *usually* fine, but can be confusing when using `return_type_notation`. Print the path of the method from where the RPITIT originates when this feature gate is enabled.
rustdoc: Render private fields in tuple struct as `/* private fields */`
Reopening of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110552. All that was missing was a test for the different cases so I added it into the second commit.
Description from the original PR:
> I've gotten some feedback that the current rustdoc rendering of...
>
> ```
> struct HasPrivateFields(_);
> ```
>
> ...is confusing, and I agree with that feedback, especially compared to the field struct case:
>
> ```
> struct HasPrivateFields { /* private fields */ }
> ```
>
> So this PR makes it so that when all of the fields of a tuple variant are private, just render it with the `/* private fields */` comment. We can't *always* render it like that, for example when there's a mix of private and public fields.
cc ````@jsha````
r? ````@notriddle````
MCP661: Move wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads target to Tier 2
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/661
>A tier 2 target must have value to people other than its maintainers. (It may still be a niche target, but it must not be exclusively useful for an inherently closed group.)
The feature is already implemented in [wasi-sdk(](https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-sdk) (C toolchain for WASM), and four different WASM runtimes([Wasmtime](https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime), [WAMR](https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-micro-runtime), [Wasmer](https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer), [toywasm](https://github.com/yamt/toywasm)) are compatible with it.
>A tier 2 target must have a designated team of developers (the "target maintainers") available to consult on target-specific build-breaking issues, or if necessary to develop target-specific language or library implementation details. This team must have at least 2 developers.
>The target maintainers should not only fix target-specific issues, but should use any such issue as an opportunity to educate the Rust community about portability to their target, and enhance documentation of the target.
We already have a team of 4 developers. See [src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads.md](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads.md). The documentation is being updated in this PR as the first occurrence.
>The target must not place undue burden on Rust developers not specifically concerned with that target. Rust developers are expected to not gratuitously break a tier 2 target, but are not expected to become experts in every tier 2 target, and are not expected to provide target-specific implementations for every tier 2 target.
It doesn't as it’s built on top of existing wasm32-wasi tier-2 target and it only extends stdlib by implementing
std:: thread::spawn/join.
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target using cross-compilation, and explaining how to run tests for the target. If at all possible, this documentation should show how to run Rust programs and tests for the target using emulation, to allow anyone to do so. If the target cannot be feasibly emulated, the documentation should explain how to obtain and work with physical hardware, cloud systems, or equivalent.
For build and running tests see *Building Rust programs* and *Testing* in [src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads.md](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads.md). Only manual test running is supported at the moment with some tweaks in the test runner codebase.
> The target must document its baseline expectations for the features or versions of CPUs, operating systems, libraries, runtime environments, and similar.
See *Platform requirements* in [src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads.md](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads.md)
> If introducing a new tier 2 or higher target that is identical to an existing Rust target except for the baseline expectations for the features or versions of CPUs, operating systems, libraries, runtime environments, and similar, then the proposed target must document to the satisfaction of the approving teams why the specific difference in baseline expectations provides sufficient value to justify a separate target.
>Note that in some cases, based on the usage of existing targets within the Rust community, Rust developers or a target's maintainers may wish to modify the baseline expectations of a target, or split an existing target into multiple targets with different baseline expectations. A proposal to do so will be treated similarly to the analogous promotion, demotion, or removal of a target, according to this policy, with the same team approvals required.
>For instance, if an OS version has become obsolete and unsupported, a target for that OS may raise its baseline expectations for OS version (treated as though removing a target corresponding to the older versions), or a target for that OS may split out support for older OS versions into a lower-tier target (treated as though demoting a target corresponding to the older versions, and requiring justification for a new target at a lower tier for the older OS versions).
Justified in https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/574 and I acknowledge these requirements and intend to ensure they are met.
> Tier 2 targets must not leave any significant portions of core or the standard library unimplemented or stubbed out, unless they cannot possibly be supported on the target.
>The right approach to handling a missing feature from a target may depend on whether the target seems likely to develop the feature in the future. In some cases, a target may be co-developed along with Rust support, and Rust may gain new features on the target as that target gains the capabilities to support those features.
>As an exception, a target identical to an existing tier 1 target except for lower baseline expectations for the OS, CPU, or similar, may propose to qualify as tier 2 (but not higher) without support for std if the target will primarily be used in no_std applications, to reduce the support burden for the standard library. In this case, evaluation of the proposed target's value will take this limitation into account.
It does not, as it’s built as an extension of the existing tier 2 target (wasm32-wasi).
> The code generation backend for the target should not have deficiencies that invalidate Rust safety properties, as evaluated by the Rust compiler team. (This requirement does not apply to arbitrary security enhancements or mitigations provided by code generation backends, only to those properties needed to ensure safe Rust code cannot cause undefined behavior or other unsoundness.) If this requirement does not hold, the target must clearly and prominently document any such limitations as part of the target's entry in the target tier list, and ideally also via a failing test in the testsuite. The Rust compiler team must be satisfied with the balance between these limitations and the difficulty of implementing the necessary features.
>For example, if Rust relies on a specific code generation feature to ensure that safe code cannot overflow the stack, the code generation for the target should support that feature.
>If the Rust compiler introduces new safety properties (such as via new capabilities of a compiler backend), the Rust compiler team will determine if they consider those new safety properties a best-effort improvement for specific targets, or a required property for all Rust targets. In the latter case, the compiler team may require the maintainers of existing targets to either implement and confirm support for the property or update the target tier list with documentation of the missing property.
Doesn't apply, the target re-uses existing backend and doesn't extend it
> If the target supports C code, and the target has an interoperable calling convention for C code, the Rust target must support that C calling convention for the platform via extern "C". The C calling convention does not need to be the default Rust calling convention for the target, however.
Target does not support C code
>The target must build reliably in CI, for all components that Rust's CI considers mandatory.
The target reliably builds in CI already https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/ci/docker/host-x86_64/dist-various-2/Dockerfile#L143.
>The approving teams may additionally require that a subset of tests pass in CI, such as enough to build a functional "hello world" program, ./x.py test --no-run, or equivalent "smoke tests". In particular, this requirement may apply if the target builds host tools, or if the tests in question provide substantial value via early detection of critical problems.
The existing tier-2 target and this target as its extension [pass](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112922#issuecomment-1634514924) for 14.5k+ tests/ui when tests are run manually(described in *Testing* in in [src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads.md](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/wasm32-wasi-preview1-threads.md). Can be tested in the CI as soon as the original target does.
> Building the target in CI must not take substantially longer than the current slowest target in CI, and should not substantially raise the maintenance burden of the CI infrastructure. This requirement is subjective, to be evaluated by the infrastructure team, and will take the community importance of the target into account.
It doesn’t as it only slightly extends standard library of the existing target
> Tier 2 targets should, if at all possible, support cross-compiling. Tier 2 targets should not require using the target as the host for builds, even if the target supports host tools.
N/a given as it only extends stdlib of the existing target.
> In addition to the legal requirements for all targets (specified in the tier 3 requirements), because a tier 2 target typically involves the Rust project building and supplying various compiled binaries, incorporating the target and redistributing any resulting compiled binaries (e.g. built libraries, host tools if any) must not impose any onerous license requirements on any members of the Rust project, including infrastructure team members and those operating CI systems. This is a subjective requirement, to be evaluated by the approving teams.
>As an exception to this, if the target's primary purpose is to build components for a Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) project licensed under "copyleft" terms (terms which require licensing other code under compatible FOSS terms), such as kernel modules or plugins, then the standard libraries for the target may potentially be subject to copyleft terms, as long as such terms are satisfied by Rust's existing practices of providing full corresponding source code. Note that anything added to the Rust repository itself must still use Rust's standard license terms.
Requirement are met, no legal issues.
> Tier 2 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to ensure that tests pass for 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 tests failing for the target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via `````@)````` to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding the PR breaking tests on a tier 2 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 acknowledge these requirements and intend to ensure they are met.
> The target maintainers should regularly run the testsuite for the target, and should fix any test failures in a reasonably timely fashion.
The tests are run manually every week by `````@g0djan````` now.
While target has been in Tier 3, 2 issues(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114608 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114610) have been raised. Both issues were addressed the same day and fixes has been merged by now.
> All requirements for tier 3 apply.
Target was initially accepted as a Tier 3 target in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112922 .
