Move the extended lifetime resolution into typeck context
Related to #15023
This PR is based on the [idea](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15023#issuecomment-1070931433) of #15023 by `@nikomatsakis.`
This PR specifically proposes to
- Delay the resolution of scopes of rvalues to a later stage, so that enough type information is available to refine those scopes based on relationships of lifetimes.
- Highlight relevant parts that would help future reviews on the next installments of works to fully implement a solution to RFC 66.
Implement proper stability check for const impl Trait, fall back to unstable const when undeclared
Continuation of #93960
`@jhpratt` it looks to me like the test was simply not testing for the failure you were looking for? Your checks actually do the right thing for const traits?
Fix typo in futex RwLock::write_contended.
I wrote `state` where I should've used `s`.
This was spotted by `@Warrenren.`
This change removes the unnecessary `s` variable to prevent that mistake.
Fortunately, this typo didn't affect the correctness of the lock, as the
second half of the condition (!has_writers_waiting) is enough for
correctness, which explains why this mistake didn't show up during
testing.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97162
Omit stdarch workspace from rust-src
The path `library/stdarch/crates/Cargo.toml` does not exist.
In Rust 1.61.0, `rust-src` still includes `src/rust/library/stdarch/Cargo.toml` (but not `stdarch-verify`), which includes
```toml
[workspace]
members = [
"crates/stdarch-verify"
```
This didn't show up when testing with `-Zbuild-std` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94907 since the [standard list of crates](f624095e1c/src/cargo/core/compiler/standard_lib.rs (L26-L30)) to include when building `std` does not include `stdarch`, but it will show up if a user explicitly requests `stdarch`. Or, perhaps more importantly, because of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95736, many editors (like IntelliJ) won't treat the root of `rust-src` as a workspace, and will instead recurse into all the sub-crates directly, which then includes `stdarch`.
Also related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94906.
Fix `Display` for `cell::{Ref,RefMut}`
These guards changed to pointers in #97027, but their `Display` was
formatting that field directly, which made it show the raw pointer
value. Now we go through `Deref` to display the real value again.
Miri noticed this change, #97204, so hopefully that will be fixed.
Fix rusty grammar in `std::error::Reporter` docs
### Commit
I initially saw "print's" instead of "prints" at the start of the doc comment for `std::error::Reporter`, while reading the docs for that type. Then I figured 'probably more where that came from', so, as well as correcting the foregoing to "prints", I've patched up these three minor solecisms (well, two [types](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type%E2%80%93token_distinction), three [tokens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type%E2%80%93token_distinction)):
- One use of the indicative which should be subjunctive - indeed the sentence immediately following it, which mirrors its structure, _does_ use the subjunctive ([L871](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/std/src/error.rs?plain=1#L871)). Replaced with the subjunctive.
- Two separate clauses joined with commas ([L975](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/std/src/error.rs?plain=1#L975), [L1023](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/std/src/error.rs?plain=1#L1023)). Replaced the first with a semicolon and the second with a period. Admittedly those judgements are pretty much 100% subjective, based on my sense of how the sentences flowed into each other (though ofc the _replacement of the comma itself_ is not subjective or opinion-based).
I know this is silly and finicky, but I hope it helps tidy up the docs a bit for future readers!
### PR notes
**This is very much non-urgent (and, honestly, non-important).** I just figured it might be a nice quality-of-life improvement and bit of tidying up for the core contributors themselves not to have to do. 🙂
I'm tagging Steve, per the [contributing guidelines](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/contributing.html#r) ("Steve usually reviews documentation changes. So if you were to make a documentation change, add `r? `@steveklabnik`"):`
r? `@steveklabnik`
Stabilize `array_from_fn`
## Overall
Stabilizes `core::array::from_fn` ~~and `core::array::try_from_fn`~~ to allow the creation of custom infallible ~~and fallible~~ arrays.
Signature proposed for stabilization here, tweaked as requested in the meeting:
```rust
// in core::array
pub fn from_fn<T, const N: usize, F>(_: F) -> [T; N];
```
Examples in https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/array/fn.from_fn.html
## History
* On 2020-08-17, implementation was [proposed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75644).
* On 2021-09-29, tracking issue was [created](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89379).
* On 2021-10-09, the proposed implementation was [merged](bc8ad24020).
* On 2021-12-03, the return type of `try_from_fn` was [changed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/91286#issuecomment-985513407).
## Considerations
* It is being assumed that indices are useful and shouldn't be removed from the callbacks
* The fact that `try_from_fn` returns an unstable type `R: Try` does not prevent stabilization. Although I'm honestly not sure about it.
* The addition or not of repeat-like variants is orthogonal to this PR.
These considerations are not ways of saying what is better or what is worse. In reality, they are an attempt to move things forward, anything really.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89379
correctly deal with user type ascriptions in pat
supersedes #93856
`thir::PatKind::AscribeUserType` previously resulted in `CanonicalUserTypeAnnotations` where the inferred type already had a subtyping relation according to `variance` to the `user_ty`.
The bug can pretty much be summarized as follows:
- during mir building
- `user_ty -> inferred_ty`: considers variance
- `StatementKind::AscribeUserType`: `inferred_ty` is the type of the place, so no variance needed
- during mir borrowck
- `user_ty -> inferred_ty`: does not consider variance
- `StatementKind::AscribeUserType`: applies variance
This mostly worked fine. The lifetimes in `inferred_ty` were only bound by its relation to `user_ty` and to the `place` of `StatementKind::AscribeUserType`, so it doesn't matter where exactly the subtyping happens.
It does however matter when having higher ranked subtying. At this point the place where the subtyping happens is forced, causing this mismatch between building and borrowck to result in unintended errors.
cc #96514 which is pretty much the same issue
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Implement Copy, Clone, PartialEq and Eq for core::fmt::Alignment
Alignment is a fieldless exhaustive enum, so it is already possible to
clone and compare it by matching, but it is inconvenient to do so. For
example, if one would like to create a struct describing a formatter
configuration and provide a clone implementation:
```rust
pub struct Format {
fill: char,
width: Option<usize>,
align: fmt::Alignment,
}
impl Clone for Format {
fn clone(&self) -> Self {
Format {
align: match self.align {
fmt::Alignment::Left => fmt::Alignment::Left,
fmt::Alignment::Right => fmt::Alignment::Right,
fmt::Alignment::Center => fmt::Alignment::Center,
},
.. *self
}
}
}
```
Derive Copy, Clone, PartialEq, and Eq for Alignment for convenience.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #97190 (Add implicit call to from_str via parse in documentation)
- #97218 (Add eslint checks)
- #97219 (make ptr::invalid not the same as a regular int2ptr cast)
- #97223 (Remove quadratic behaviour from -Zunpretty=hir-tree.)
- #97232 (typo)
- #97237 (Add some more weird-exprs)
- #97238 (Bump LLVM fetched from CI to fix run-make)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Bump LLVM fetched from CI to fix run-make
cc `@yaahc,` who found this while testing locally
Ideally we'd detect this in CI and catch it, but at least we have a comment now which should hopefully prevent this from happening in the future.
r? `@pietroalbini` or `@jyn514`
Add some more weird-exprs
Continuing from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86713 (which stalled due to a thinking emoji), I'd like to "improve" the `weird-exprs.rs`-file (as I can't reopen that PR).
make ptr::invalid not the same as a regular int2ptr cast
In Miri, we would like to distinguish `ptr::invalid` from `ptr::from_exposed_provenance`, so that we can provide better diagnostics issues like https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2134, and so that we can detect the UB in programs like
```rust
fn main() {
let x = 0u8;
let original_ptr = &x as *const u8;
let addr = original_ptr.expose_addr();
let new_ptr: *const u8 = core::ptr::invalid(addr);
unsafe {
dbg!(*new_ptr);
}
}
```
To achieve that, the two functions need to have different implementations. Currently, both are just `as` casts. We *could* add an intrinsic for this, but it turns out `transmute` already has the right behavior, at least as far as Miri is concerned. So I propose we just use that.
Cc `@Gankra`
Add eslint checks
The first check is to ensure that `=>` is always surrounded with whitespaces.
The second is to ensure that the dict objects looks like this: `{"a": 2}` and not `{"a" : 2}` or `{"a":2}`.
r? ``@notriddle``
Add implicit call to from_str via parse in documentation
The documentation mentions "FromStr’s from_str method is often used implicitly,
through str’s parse method. See parse’s documentation for examples.".
It may be nicer to show that in the code example as well.
I wrote `state` where I should've used `s`.
This removes the unnecessary `s` variable to prevent that mistake.
Fortunately, this typo didn't affect the correctness of the lock, as the
second half of the condition (!has_writers_waiting) is enough for
correctness, which explains why this mistake didn't show up during
testing.
rustdoc: Reduce clean::Type size
There is no need to keep the `DefId` around since it's allow used to compute if we should show a cast or not. As such, we can simply directly store the boolean.
I think it's not what you had in mind `@camelid` but I guess it's still an improvement? 😉
It was discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93941.
r? `@camelid`
Remove `crate` visibility modifier
FCP to remove this syntax is just about complete in #53120. Once it completes, this should be merged ASAP to avoid merge conflicts.
The first two commits remove usage of the feature in this repository, while the last removes the feature itself.
Drop Tracking: Implement `fake_read` callback
This PR updates drop tracking's use of `ExprUseVisitor` so that we treat `fake_read` events as borrows. Without doing this, we were not handling match expressions correctly, which showed up as a breakage in the `addassign-yield.rs` test. We did not previously notice this because we still had rather large temporary scopes that we held borrows for, which changed in #94309.
This PR also includes a variant of the `addassign-yield.rs` test case to make sure we continue to have correct behavior here with drop tracking.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Improve codegen of String::retain method
This pull-request improve the codegen of the `String::retain` method.
Using `unwrap_unchecked` helps the optimizer to not generate a panicking path that will never be taken for valid UTF-8 like string.
Using `encode_utf8` saves us from an expensive call to `memcpy`, as the optimizer is unable to realize that `ch_len <= 4` and so can generate much better assembly code.
https://rust.godbolt.org/z/z73ohenfc
Use GRND_INSECURE instead of /dev/urandom when possible
From reading the source code, it appears like the desired semantic of
std::unix::rand is to always provide some bytes and never block. For
that reason GRND_NONBLOCK is checked before calling getrandom(0), so
that getrandom(0) won't block. If it would block, then the function
falls back to using /dev/urandom, which for the time being doesn't
block. There are some drawbacks to using /dev/urandom, however, and so
getrandom(GRND_INSECURE) was created as a replacement for this exact
circumstance.
getrandom(GRND_INSECURE) is the same as /dev/urandom, except:
- It won't leave a warning in dmesg if used at early boot time, which is
a common occurance (and the reason why I found this issue);
- It won't introduce a tiny delay at early boot on newer kernels when
/dev/urandom tries to opportunistically create jitter entropy;
- It only requires 1 syscall, rather than 3.
Other than that, it returns the same "quality" of randomness as
/dev/urandom, and never blocks.
It's only available on kernels ≥5.6, so we try to use it, cache the
result of that attempt, and fall back to to the previous code if it
didn't work.
From reading the source code, it appears like the desired semantic of
std::unix::rand is to always provide some bytes and never block. For
that reason GRND_NONBLOCK is checked before calling getrandom(0), so
that getrandom(0) won't block. If it would block, then the function
falls back to using /dev/urandom, which for the time being doesn't
block. There are some drawbacks to using /dev/urandom, however, and so
getrandom(GRND_INSECURE) was created as a replacement for this exact
circumstance.
getrandom(GRND_INSECURE) is the same as /dev/urandom, except:
- It won't leave a warning in dmesg if used at early boot time, which is
a common occurance (and the reason why I found this issue);
- It won't introduce a tiny delay at early boot on newer kernels when
/dev/urandom tries to opportunistically create jitter entropy;
- It only requires 1 syscall, rather than 3.
Other than that, it returns the same "quality" of randomness as
/dev/urandom, and never blocks.
It's only available on kernels ≥5.6, so we try to use it, cache the
result of that attempt, and fall back to to the previous code if it
didn't work.
Rustup
`@rust-lang/clippy,` `@Jarcho,` `@dswij,` `@Alexendoo.` Could someone review this? It should be pretty straight forward since it's just a sync. I think it's also fine if either one of `@Jarcho,` `@dswij,` `@Alexendoo` approves this, as these are usually not reviewed. I just want to make sure that I didn't break something obvious 🙃
It should be enough to look at the merge commit 🙃
changelog: none
changelog: move [`significant_drop_in_scrutinee`] to `suspicious`
