Stabilize `unsafe_attributes`
# Stabilization report
## Summary
This is a tracking issue for the RFC 3325: unsafe attributes
We are stabilizing `#![feature(unsafe_attributes)]`, which makes certain attributes considered 'unsafe', meaning that they must be surrounded by an `unsafe(...)`, as in `#[unsafe(no_mangle)]`.
RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#3325
Tracking issue: #123757
## What is stabilized
### Summary of stabilization
Certain attributes will now be designated as unsafe attributes, namely, `no_mangle`, `export_name`, and `link_section` (stable only), and these attributes will need to be called by surrounding them in `unsafe(...)` syntax. On editions prior to 2024, this is simply an edition lint, but it will become a hard error in 2024. This also works in `cfg_attr`, but `unsafe` is not allowed for any other attributes, including proc-macros ones.
```rust
#[unsafe(no_mangle)]
fn a() {}
#[cfg_attr(any(), unsafe(export_name = "c"))]
fn b() {}
```
For a table showing the attributes that were considered to be included in the list to require unsafe, and subsequent reasoning about why each such attribute was or was not included, see [this comment here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124214#issuecomment-2124753464)
## Tests
The relevant tests are in `tests/ui/rust-2024/unsafe-attributes` and `tests/ui/attributes/unsafe`.
derive(SmartPointer): register helper attributes
Fix#128888
This PR enables built-in macros to register helper attributes, if any, to support correct name resolution in the correct lexical scope under the macros.
Also, `#[pointee]` is moved into the scope under `derive(SmartPointer)`.
cc `@Darksonn` `@davidtwco`
turn `invalid_type_param_default` into a `FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps`
`````@rust-lang/types````` I assume the plan is still to disallow this? It has been a future-compat lint for a long time, seems ripe to go for hard error.
However, turns out that outright removing it right now would lead to [tons of crater regressions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127655#issuecomment-2228285460), so for now this PR just makes this future-compat lint show up in cargo's reports, so people are warned when they use a dependency that is affected by this.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27336 by removing the feature gate (so there's no way to silence the lint even on nightly)
CC https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/36887
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)
rustc_target: add known safe s390x target features
This pull request adds known safe target features for s390x (aka IBM Z systems).
Currently, these features are unstable since stabilizing the target features requires submitting proposals.
The `vector` feature was added in IBM Z13 (`arch11`), and this is a SIMD feature for the newer IBM Z systems.
The `backchain` attribute is the IBM Z way of adding frame pointers like unwinding capabilities (the "frame-pointer" switch on IBM Z and IBM POWER platforms will add _emulated_ frame pointers to the binary, which profilers can't use for unwinding the stack).
Both attributes can be applied at the LLVM module or function levels. However, the `backchain` attribute has to be enabled for all the functions in the call stack to get a successful unwind process.
Remove lang feature for type ascription (since it's a lib feature now)
It's not necessary since it's a library feature now, via the type ascription macro. We can't (and shouldn't) register it as a removed feature since I think that would give "this feature has been removed" errors even for people using the macro (well, I'm pretty sure, though I didn't check).
r? `@Nilstrieb`
Add AMX target-features and `x86_amx_intrinsics` feature flag
This is an effort towards #126622. This adds support for all 5 target-features for `AMX`, and introduces the feature flag `x86_amx_intrinsics`, which would gate these target-features and the yet-to-be-implemented amx intrinsics in stdarch.
Remove the unstable `extern "wasm"` ABI (`wasm_abi` feature tracked
in #83788).
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127513#issuecomment-2220410679
and following, this ABI is a failed experiment that did not end
up being used for anything. Keeping support for this ABI in LLVM 19
would require us to switch wasm targets to the `experimental-mv`
ABI, which we do not want to do.
It should be noted that `Abi::Wasm` was internally used for two
things: The `-Z wasm-c-abi=legacy` ABI that is still used by
default on some wasm targets, and the `extern "wasm"` ABI. Despite
both being `Abi::Wasm` internally, they were not the same. An
explicit `extern "wasm"` additionally enabled the `+multivalue`
feature.
I've opted to remove `Abi::Wasm` in this patch entirely, instead
of keeping it as an ABI with only internal usage. Both
`-Z wasm-c-abi` variants are now treated as part of the normal
C ABI, just with different different treatment in
adjust_for_foreign_abi.
Match ergonomics 2024: Implement TC's match ergonomics proposal
Under gate `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024_structural`. Enabling `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024` at the same time allows the union of what the individual gates allow. `@traviscross`
r? `@Nadrieril`
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123076
`@rustbot` label A-edition-2024 A-patterns
patchable-function-entry: Add unstable compiler flag and attribute
Tracking issue: #123115
Add the -Z patchable-function-entry compiler flag and the #[patchable_function_entry(prefix_nops = m, entry_nops = n)] attribute.
Rebased and adjusted the canditate implementation to match changes in the RFC.
Under gate `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024_structural`.
Enabling `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024` at the same time allows the union
of what the individual gates allow.
coverage: Overhaul validation of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute
This PR makes sweeping changes to how the (currently-unstable) coverage attribute is validated:
- Multiple coverage attributes on the same item/expression are now treated as an error.
- The attribute must always be `#[coverage(off)]` or `#[coverage(on)]`, and the error messages for this are more consistent.
- A trailing comma is still allowed after off/on, since that's part of the normal attribute syntax.
- Some places that silently ignored a coverage attribute now produce an error instead.
- These cases were all clearly bugs.
- Some places that ignored a coverage attribute (with a warning) now produce an error instead.
- These were originally added as lints, but I don't think it makes much sense to knowingly allow new attributes to be used in meaningless places.
- Some of these errors might soon disappear, if it's easy to extend recursive coverage attributes to things like modules and impl blocks.
---
One of the goals of this PR is to lay a more solid foundation for making the coverage attribute recursive, so that it applies to all nested functions/closures instead of just the one it is directly attached to.
Fixes#126658.
This PR incorporates #126659, which adds more tests for validation of the coverage attribute.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
SmartPointer derive-macro
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Possibly replacing #123472 for continued upkeep of the proposal rust-lang/rfcs#3621 and implementation of the tracking issue #123430.
cc `@Darksonn` `@wedsonaf`
It might make sense to allow this in the future, if we add values that aren't
mutually exclusive, but for now having multiple coverage attributes on one item
is useless.
