Plugin interface cleanup
The first commit performs two uncontroversial cleanups. The second commit removes `#[plugin_registrar]` and instead requires you to export a `__rustc_plugin_registrar` function, this will require a change to servo's script_plugins (cc `@jdm)`
* On suggestions that include deletions, use a diff inspired output format
* When suggesting addition, use `+` as underline
* Color highlight modified span
Various refactorings of the TAIT infrastructure
Before this PR we used to store the opaque type knowledge outside the `InferCtxt`, so it got recomputed on every opaque type instantiation.
I also removed a feature gate check that makes no sense in the planned lazy TAIT resolution scheme
Each commit passes all tests, so this PR is best reviewed commit by commit.
r? `@spastorino`
LLVM codegen: Don't emit zero-sized padding for fields
Currently padding is emitted before fields of a struct and at the end of the struct regardless of the ABI. Even if no padding is required zero-sized padding fields are emitted. This is not useful and - more importantly - it make it impossible to generate the exact vector types that LLVM expects for certain ARM SIMD intrinsics. This change should unblock the implementation of many ARM intrinsics using the `unadjusted` ABI, see https://github.com/rust-lang/stdarch/issues/1143#issuecomment-827404092.
This is a proof of concept only because the field lookup now takes O(number of fields) time compared to O(1) before since it recalculates the mapping at every lookup. I would like to find out how big the performance impact actually is before implementing caching or restricting this behavior to the `unadjusted` ABI.
cc `@SparrowLii` `@bjorn3`
([Discussion on internals](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/feature-request-add-a-way-in-rustc-for-generating-struct-type-llvm-ir-without-paddings/15007))
typeck: don't suggest inaccessible fields in struct literals and suggest ignoring inaccessible fields in struct patterns
Fixes#87872.
This PR adjusts the missing field diagnostic logic in typeck so that when any of the missing fields in a struct literal or pattern is inaccessible then the error is less confusing, even if some of the missing fields are accessible.
See also #76524.
correctly handle enum variants in `opt_const_param_of`
Fixes#87542
`opt_const_param_of` was returning `None` for args on an enum variant `Enum::Variant::<10>` because we called `generics_of` on the enum variant which has no generics.
r? `@oli-obk`
* This commit adds the aarch64-unknown-uefi target and also adds it into
the supported targets list under the tier-3 target table.
* Uses the small code model by default
Signed-off-by: Andy-Python-Programmer <andypythonappdeveloper@gmail.com>
Fix feature gate checking of static-nobundle and native_link_modifiers
Feature native_link_modifiers_bundle don't need feature static-nobundle
to work.
Also check the feature gates when using native_link_modifiers from command line options. Current nighly compiler don't check those feature gate.
```
> touch lib.rs
> rustc +nightly lib.rs -L /usr/lib -l static:+bundle=dl --crate-type=rlib
> rustc +nightly lib.rs -L /usr/lib -l dylib:+as-needed=dl --crate-type=dylib -Ctarget-feature=-crt-static
> rustc +nightly lib.rs -L /usr/lib -l static:-bundle=dl --crate-type=rlib
error[E0658]: kind="static-nobundle" is unstable
|
= note: see issue #37403 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/37403> for more information
= help: add `#![feature(static_nobundle)]` to the crate attributes to enable
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0658`.
```
First found this in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/85600#discussion_r676612655
Simplify typeck/primary_body_of, fix comment to match return signature
Hi, new contributor here! I'm carefully reading through the various modules just to learn. I noticed this function, `primary_body_of`, which has gone through a couple of refactors over time, adding new `Option`s to its returned tuple. Observations:
1. the `fn`'s documentation was not all up to date with the the current return signature.
2. `FnHeader` and `FnDecl` are always both `Some` or `None`. So I figured it might just return a reference to the full `hir::FnSig`, for simplicity and more precise typing. It's a pure refactor.
I'm learning better by working with code than just reading it, so here goes! If you want to avoid pure refactor PRs that don't really fix anything, I can revert the code change to only update the comment instead.
encode `generics_of` for fields and ty params
Fixes#87674Fixes#87603
ICE was caused by calling `generics_of` on a `DefId` without any `generics_of` results. This was happening when we call `generics_of` on parent `DefId`s of an unevaluated const when we evaluate it.
r? `@lcnr`
PassWrapper: handle move of OptimizationLevel class out of PassBuilder
This is the first build break of the LLVM 14 cycle, and was caused by
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107025. Mercifully an easy fix.
Move naked function ABI check to its own lint
This check was previously categorized under the lint named
`UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`. That lint is future incompatible and will
be turned into an error in a future release. However, as defined in the
Constrained Naked Functions RFC, this check should only be a warning.
This is because it is possible for a naked function to be implemented in
such a way that it does not break even the undefined ABI. For example, a
`jmp` to a `const`.
Therefore, this patch defines a new lint named
`UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI` which contains just this single check.
Unlike `UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`, `UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI`
will not be converted to an error in the future.
rust-lang/rfcs#2774rust-lang/rfcs#2972
Prepare call/invoke for opaque pointers
Rather than relying on `getPointerElementType()` from LLVM function
pointers, we now pass the function type explicitly when building `call`
or `invoke` instructions.
Hide allocator details from TryReserveError
I think there's [no need for TryReserveError to carry detailed information](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48043#issuecomment-825139280), but I wouldn't want that issue to delay stabilization of the `try_reserve` feature.
So I'm proposing to stabilize `try_reserve` with a `TryReserveError` as an opaque structure, and if needed, expose error details later.
This PR moves the `enum` to an unstable inner `TryReserveErrorKind` that lives under a separate feature flag. `TryReserveErrorKind` could possibly be left as an implementation detail forever, and the `TryReserveError` get methods such as `allocation_size() -> Option<usize>` or `layout() -> Option<Layout>` instead, or the details could be dropped completely to make try-reserve errors just a unit struct, and thus smaller and cheaper.
Sync rustc_codegen_cranelift
05677b6bd6 removes two assertions that should have been removed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87515. They are no longer correct and trigger while compiling the sysroot.
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` label +A-codegen +A-cranelift +T-compiler
Remove special case for statement `NodeId` assignment
We now let `noop_flat_map_stmt` assign `NodeId`s (via `visit_id`),
just as we do for other AST nodes.
Add hint for unresolved associated trait items if the trait has a single item
This PR introduces a special-cased hint for unresolved trait items paths. It is shown if:
- the path was not resolved to any existing trait item
- and no existing trait item's name was reasonably close with regard to edit distance
- and the trait only has a single item in the corresponding namespace
I didn't know where I should put tests, therefore so far I just managed to bless two existing tests. I would be glad for hints where should tests for a hint like this be created, how should they be named (with reference to the original issue?) and what tests should I create (is it enough to test it just for types? or create separate tests also for functions and constants?).
It could also be turned into a machine applicable suggestion I suppose.
This is my first `rustc` PR, so please go easy on me :)
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87638
Fix overflow in rustc happening if the `err_count()` is reduced in a stage.
This can happen if stashed diagnostics are removed or replaced with fewer errors. The semantics stay the same if built without overflow checks. Fixes#84219.
Background: I came across this independently by running `RUSTFLAGS="-C overflow-checks=on" ./x.py test`. Fixing this will allow us to move on and find further overflow errors with testing or fuzzing.
