Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125205 (Fixup Windows verbatim paths when used with the `include!` macro)
- #131049 (Validate args are correct for `UnevaluatedConst`, `ExistentialTraitRef`/`ExistentialProjection`)
- #131549 (Add a note for `?` on a `impl Future<Output = Result<..>>` in sync function)
- #131731 (add `TestFloatParse` to `tools.rs` for bootstrap)
- #131732 (Add doc(plugins), doc(passes), etc. to INVALID_DOC_ATTRIBUTES)
- #132006 (don't stage-off to previous compiler when CI rustc is available)
- #132022 (Move `cmp_in_dominator_order` out of graph dominator computation)
- #132033 (compiletest: Make `line_directive` return a `DirectiveLine`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add a note for `?` on a `impl Future<Output = Result<..>>` in sync function
It's confusing to `?` a future of a result in a sync function. We have a suggestion to `.await` it if we're in an async function, but not a sync function. Note that this is the case for sync functions, at least.
Let's be a bit more vague about a fix, since it's somewhat context dependent. For example, you could block on it, or you could make your function asynchronous. 🤷
terminology: #[feature] *enables* a feature (instead of "declaring" or "activating" it)
Mostly, we currently call a feature that has a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` attribute in the current crate a "declared" feature. I think that is confusing as it does not align with what "declaring" usually means. Furthermore, we *also* refer to `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]` as *declaring* a feature (e.g. in [these diagnostics](f25e5abea2/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl (L297-L301))), which aligns better with what "declaring" usually means. To make things worse, the functions `tcx.features().active(...)` and `tcx.features().declared(...)` both exist and they are doing almost the same thing (testing whether a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` exists) except that `active` would ICE if the feature is not an unstable lang feature. On top of this, the callback when a feature is activated/declared is called `set_enabled`, and many comments also talk about "enabling" a feature.
So really, our terminology is just a mess.
I would suggest we use "declaring a feature" for saying that something is/was guarded by a feature (e.g. `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]`), and "enabling a feature" for `#[feature(name)]`. This PR implements that.
Move const trait tests from `ui/rfcs/rfc-2632-const-trait-impl` to `ui/traits/const-traits`
I found the old test directory to be somewhat long to name, and I don't think it's necessary to put an experimental implementation's tests under an rfc which is closed.
r? fee1-dead
Breaking this out of #131985 so that PR doesn't touch 300 files.
rust_for_linux: -Zregparm=<N> commandline flag for X86 (#116972)
Command line flag `-Zregparm=<N>` for X86 (32-bit) for rust-for-linux: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116972
Implemented in the similar way as fastcall/vectorcall support (args are marked InReg if fit).
make unsupported_calling_conventions a hard error
This has been a future-compat lint (not shown in dependencies) since Rust 1.55, released 3 years ago. Hopefully that was enough time so this can be made a hard error now. Given that long timeframe, I think it's justified to skip the "show in dependencies" stage. There were [not many crates hitting this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86231#issuecomment-866300943) even when the lint was originally added.
This should get cratered, and I assume then it needs a t-compiler FCP. (t-compiler because this looks entirely like an implementation oversight -- for the vast majority of ABIs, we already have a hard error, but some were initially missed, and we are finally fixing that.)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87678
Improve test coverage for `unit_bindings` lint
Follow-up to #112380, apparently at the time I didn't add much of any test coverage outside of just "generally works as intended on the test suites and in the crater run".
r? compiler
test: Add test for trait in FQS cast, issue #98565Closes#98565 by adding a test to check for diagnostics when the built-in type `str` is used in a cast where a trait is expected.
stabilize Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance APIs
Given that [RFC 3559](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3559-rust-has-provenance.html) has been accepted, t-lang has approved the concept of provenance to exist in the language. So I think it's time that we stabilize the strict provenance and exposed provenance APIs, and discuss provenance explicitly in the docs:
```rust
// core::ptr
pub const fn without_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub const fn dangling<T>() -> *const T;
pub const fn without_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
pub const fn dangling_mut<T>() -> *mut T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
impl<T: ?Sized> *const T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> *mut T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> NonNull<T> {
pub fn addr(self) -> NonZero<usize>;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(NonZero<usize>) -> NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
}
```
I also did a pass over the docs to adjust them, because this is no longer an "experiment". The `ptr` docs now discuss the concept of provenance in general, and then they go into the two families of APIs for dealing with provenance: Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance. I removed the discussion of how pointers also have an associated "address space" -- that is not actually tracked in the pointer value, it is tracked in the type, so IMO it just distracts from the core point of provenance. I also adjusted the docs for `with_exposed_provenance` to make it clear that we cannot guarantee much about this function, it's all best-effort.
There are two unstable lints associated with the strict_provenance feature gate; I moved them to a new [strict_provenance_lints](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130351) feature since I didn't want this PR to have an even bigger FCP. ;)
`@rust-lang/opsem` Would be great to get some feedback on the docs here. :)
Nominating for `@rust-lang/libs-api.`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95228.
[FCP comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130350#issuecomment-2395114536)
Finish stabilization of `result_ffi_guarantees`
The internal linting has been changed, so all that is left is making sure we stabilize what we want to stabilize.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126588 (Added more scenarios where comma to be removed in the function arg)
- #131728 (bootstrap: extract builder cargo to its own module)
- #131968 (Rip out old effects var handling code from traits)
- #131981 (Remove the `BoundConstness::NotConst` variant)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Added more scenarios where comma to be removed in the function arg
This is an attempt to address the problem methion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/106304#issuecomment-1837273666.
Copy the annotation to explain the fix
If the next Error::Extra ("next") doesn't next to current ("current")
```
fn foo(_: (), _: u32) {}
- foo("current", (), 1u32, "next")
+ foo((), 1u32)
```
If the previous error is not a `Error::Extra`, then do not trim the next comma
```
- foo((), "current", 42u32, "next")
+ foo((), 42u32)
```
Frankly, this is a fix from a test case and may not cover all scenarios
Continue to get rid of `ty::Const::{try_}eval*`
This PR mostly does:
* Removes all of the `try_eval_*` and `eval_*` helpers from `ty::Const`, and replace their usages with `try_to_*`.
* Remove `ty::Const::eval`.
* Rename `ty::Const::normalize` to `ty::Const::normalize_internal`. This function is still used in the normalization code itself.
* Fix some weirdness around the `TransmuteFrom` goal.
I'm happy to split it out further; for example, I could probably land the first part which removes the helpers, or the changes to codegen which are more obvious than the changes to tools.
r? BoxyUwU
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130704
`optimize` attribute applied to things other than methods/functions/c…
…losures gives an error (#128488)
Duplicate of #128943, which I had accidentally closed when rebasing.
cc. `@jieyouxu` `@compiler-errors` `@nikomatsakis` `@traviscross` `@pnkfelix.`
compiler: Error on layout of enums with invalid reprs
Surprising no one, the ICEs with the same message have the same root cause.
Invalid reprs can reach layout computation for various reasons. For instance, the compiler may want to use its layout computations to discern if a combination of layout-affecting attributes results in a valid type to begin with by e.g. computing its size. When the input is bad, return an error reflecting that the answer to the question is not a useful one.
Allow `#[deny]` inside `#[forbid]` as a no-op
Forbid cannot be overriden. When someome tries to do this anyways, it results in a hard error. That makes sense.
Except it doesn't, because macros. Macros may reasonably use `#[deny]` (or `#[warn]` for an allow-by-default lint) in their expansion to assert that their expanded code follows the lint. This is doesn't work when the output gets expanded into a `forbid()` context. This is pretty silly, since both the macros and the code agree on the lint!
By making it a warning instead, we remove the problem with the macro, which is now nothing as warnings are suppressed in macro expanded code, while still telling users that something is up.
fixes#121483
Just because the code says it's OK does not mean that it actually is OK.
Nodes with the same total size were not sorted, their order relied on
hashmap iteration.
Stop inverting expectation in normalization errors
We have some funky special case logic to invert the expectation and actual type for normalization errors depending on their cause code. IMO most of the error messages get better, except for `try {}` blocks' type expectations. I think that these need to be special cased in some other way, rather than via this hack.
Fixes#131763
Make sure that outer opaques capture inner opaques's lifetimes even with precise capturing syntax
When lowering an opaque, we must capture and duplicate all of the lifetimes in the opaque's bounds to correctly lower the opaque's bounds. We do this *even if* the lifetime is not captured according to the `+ use<>` precise capturing bound; in that case, we will later reject that captured lifetime. For example, Given an opaque like `impl Sized + 'a + use<>`, we will still duplicate `'a` but later error that it is not mentioned in the `use<>` bound.
The current heuristic was not properly handling cases like:
```
//@ edition: 2024
fn foo<'a>() -> impl Trait<Assoc = impl Trait2> + use<> {}
```
Which forces the outer `impl Trait` to capture `'a` since `impl Trait2` *implicitly* captures `'a` due to the new lifetime capture rules for edition 2024. We were only capturing lifetimes syntactically mentioned in the bounds. (Note that this still is an error; we just need to capture `'a` so it is handled later in the compiler correctly -- hence the ICE in #131769 where a late-bound lifetime was being referenced outside of its binder).
This PR reworks the way we collect lifetimes to capture and duplicate in AST lowering to fix this.
Fixes#131769
warn less about non-exhaustive in ffi
Bindgen allows generating `#[non_exhaustive] #[repr(u32)]` enums. This results in nonintuitive nonlocal `improper_ctypes` warnings, even when the types are otherwise perfectly valid in C.
Adjust for actual tooling expectations by avoiding warning on simple enums with only unit variants.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116831
