Add a test to ensure issue #89699 does not show up again. This test
emits an `async move` closure in a proc macro, which is used in a
test program compiled with edition 2015. We make sure the error message
is nice and shows up properly.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #117828 (Avoid iterating over hashmaps in astconv)
- #117832 (interpret: simplify handling of shifts by no longer trying to handle signed and unsigned shift amounts in the same branch)
- #117891 (Recover `dyn` and `impl` after `for<...>`)
- #117957 (if available use a Child's pidfd for kill/wait)
- #117988 (Handle attempts to have multiple `cfg`d tail expressions)
- #117994 (Ignore but do not assume region obligations from unifying headers in negative coherence)
- #118000 (Make regionck care about placeholders in outlives components)
- #118068 (subtree update cg_gcc 2023/11/17)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
We were earlier returning immediately when encountering an illegal break. However, this caused problems later
when the expr that the break was returning was evaluated during writeback. So now we don't return and instead
simply set tainted by error. This lets typeck of break expr to occur even though we've encountered an illegal break.
Fix insertion of statements to be executed along return edge in inlining
Inlining creates additional statements to be executed along the return
edge: an assignment to the destination, storage end for temporaries.
Previously those statements where inserted directly into a call target,
but this is incorrect when the target has other predecessors.
Avoid the issue by creating a new dedicated block for those statements.
When the block happens to be redundant it will be removed by CFG
simplification that follows inlining.
Fixes#117355
Inlining creates additional statements to be executed along the return
edge: an assignment to the destination, storage end for temporaries.
Previously those statements where inserted directly into a call target,
but this is incorrect when the target has other predecessors.
Avoid the issue by creating a new dedicated block for those statements.
When the block happens to be redundant it will be removed by CFG
simplification that follows inlining.
Fixes#117355
This lint is not triggered if any of the following conditions are met:
- The user explicitly annotates the binding with the `()` type.
- The binding is from a macro expansion.
- The user explicitly wrote `let () = init;`
- The user explicitly wrote `let pat = ();`. This is allowed for local
lifetimes.
Make regionck care about placeholders in outlives components
Currently, we don't consider a placeholder type `!T` to be a type component when it comes to processing type-outlives obligations. This means that they are essentially treated like unit values with no sub-components, and always outlive any region. This is problematic for `non_lifetime_binders`, and even more problematic for `with_negative_coherence`, since negative coherence uses placeholders as universals.
This PR adds `Component::Placeholder` which acts much like `Component::Param`. This currently causes a regression in some non-lifetime-binders tests because `for<T> T: 'static` doesn't imply itself when processing outlives obligations, so code like this will fail:
```
fn foo() where for<T> T: 'static {
foo() //~ fails
}
```
Since the where clause doesn't imply itself. This requires making the `MatchAgainstHigherRankedOutlives` relation smarter when it comes to binders.
r? types
Ignore but do not assume region obligations from unifying headers in negative coherence
Partly addresses a FIXME that was added in #112875. Just as we can throw away the nested trait/projection obligations from unifying two impl headers, we can also just throw away the region obligations too.
I removed part of the FIXME that was incorrect, namely:
> Given that the only region constraints we get are involving inference regions in the root, it shouldn't matter, but still sus.
This is not true when unifying `fn(A)` and `for<'b> fn(&'b B)` which ends up with placeholder region outlives from non-root universes. I'm pretty sure this is okay, though it would be nice if we were to use them as assumptions. See the `explicit` revision of the test I committed, which still fails.
Fixes#117986
r? lcnr, feel free to reassign tho.
Recover `dyn` and `impl` after `for<...>`
Recover `dyn` and `impl` after `for<...>` in types. Reuses the logic for parsing bare trait objects, so it doesn't fix cases like `for<'a> dyn Trait + dyn Trait` or anything, but that seems somewhat of a different issue.
Parsing recovery logic is a bit involved, but I couldn't find a way to simplify it.
Fixes#117882
interpret: simplify handling of shifts by no longer trying to handle signed and unsigned shift amounts in the same branch
While we're at it, also update comments in codegen and MIR building related to shifts, and fix the overflow error printed by Miri on negative shift amounts.
Add arm64e-apple-ios & arm64e-apple-darwin targets
This introduces
* `arm64e-apple-ios`
* `arm64e-apple-darwin`
Rust targets for support `arm64e` architecture on `iOS` and `Darwin`.
So, this is a first approach for integrating to the Rust compiler.
## Tier 3 Target Policy
> * A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target
maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target.
(The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
I will be the target maintainer.
> * Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a
target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same
name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and
naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust
(such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to
diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially
once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important
even for a tier 3 target.
Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless
absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if
the name of the target makes people extremely likely to form incorrect
beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to
disambiguate it.
If possible, use only letters, numbers, dashes and underscores for the name.
Periods (.) are known to cause issues in Cargo.
The target names `arm64e-apple-ios`, `arm64e-apple-darwin` were derived from `aarch64-apple-ios`, `aarch64-apple-darwin`.
In this [ticket,](#73628) people discussed the best suitable names for these targets.
> In some cases, the arm64e arch might be "different". For example:
> * `thread_set_state` might fail with (os/kern) protection failure if we try to call it from arm64 process to arm64e process.
> * The returning value of dlsym is PAC signed on arm64e, while left untouched on arm64
> * Some function like pthread_create_from_mach_thread requires a PAC signed function pointer on arm64e, which is not required on arm64.
So, I have chosen them because there are similar triplets in LLVM. I think there are no more suitable names for these targets.
> * Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not
create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for
Rust developers or users.
The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust
license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other
host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend
on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This
applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding
new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the
rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library
or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a
user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be
subject to any new license requirements.
Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other
code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling
from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries.
Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary runtime
libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications
built for the target, but those libraries must not be required for code
generation for the target; cross-compilation to the target must not require
such libraries at all. For instance, rustc built for the target may
depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library,
but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code
optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the
Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the
scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
"onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous"
legal/licensing terms include but are not limited to: non-disclosure
requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements
(CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms,
requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular
Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability
for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that
adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its
developers or users.
No dependencies were added to Rust.
> * Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any
binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving
Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or
employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their
decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval
decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise
participate in discussions.
> * This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being
cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or
maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a
developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not
face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely
exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves
subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
Understood.
I am not a member of a Rust team.
> * Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries
as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets
that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an
operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but
may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as
appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or
challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to
avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3
target not implementing those portions.
Understood.
`std` is supported.
> * The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how
to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target
supports running binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the
documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target,
using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Building is described in the derived target doc.
> * Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or
other developers in the community, to maintain 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 a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or
notifications (via any medium, including via `@)` to a PR author or others
involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 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.
Understood.
> * Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2
or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without
approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3
target.
> * In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets,
such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid
introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the
target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as
appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
These targets are not fully ABI compatible with arm64e code.
#73628
Begin to abstract `rustc_type_ir` for rust-analyzer
This adds the "nightly" feature which is used by the compiler, and falls back to more simple implementations when that is not active.
r? `@lcnr` or `@jackh726`
When encountering struct fn call literal with private fields, suggest all builders
When encountering code like `Box(42)`, suggest `Box::new(42)` and *all* other associated functions that return `-> Box<T>`.
Add a way to give pre-sorted suggestions.
Ensure sanity of all computed ABIs
This moves the ABI sanity assertions from the codegen backend to the ABI computation logic. Sadly, due to past mistakes, we [have to](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117351#issuecomment-1788495503) be able to compute a sane ABI for nonsensical function types like `extern "C" fn(str) -> str`. So to make the sanity check pass we first need to make all ABI adjustment deal with unsized types... and we have no shared infrastructure for those adjustments, so that's a bunch of copy-paste. At least we have assertions failing loudly when one accidentally sets a different mode for an unsized argument.
To achieve this, this re-lands the parts of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80594 that got reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81388. To avoid breaking wasm ABI again, that ABI now explicitly opts-in to the (wrong, broken) ABI that we currently keep for backwards compatibility. That's still better than having *every* ABI use the wrong broken default!
Cc `@bjorn3`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115845
