Commit Graph

14 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
David Tolnay
6a02e20fb5
Update since stability attributes in tests 2023-10-23 13:04:47 -07:00
David Tolnay
01b909174b
Fix stable feature names in tests 2023-10-23 13:03:11 -07:00
León Orell Valerian Liehr
d0b99e3efe
Make #[repr(Rust)] and #[repr(C)] incompatible with one another 2023-10-18 17:25:23 +02:00
Alex Macleod
5453a9f34d Add a note to duplicate diagnostics 2023-10-05 01:04:41 +00:00
León Orell Valerian Liehr
f54db7c3a9
Gate and validate #[rustc_safe_intrinsic] 2023-09-25 22:33:15 +02:00
Michael Goulet
fd36553aa7 Don't complain on a single non-exhaustive 1-zst 2023-09-19 06:01:24 +00:00
Ralf Jung
9dd682803f repr(transparent): it's fine if the one non-1-ZST field is a ZST 2023-08-29 14:11:50 +02:00
Catherine Flores
1f7bad0d12 Clarify that Rust is default repr 2023-08-20 13:22:39 +00:00
Catherine Flores
f42d361a22 Allow explicit #[repr(Rust)] 2023-07-29 06:58:29 +00:00
David Rheinsberg
b0dadff6de error/E0691: include alignment in error message
Include the computed alignment of the violating field when rejecting
transparent types with non-trivially aligned ZSTs.

ZST member fields in transparent types must have an alignment of 1 (to
ensure it does not raise the layout requirements of the transparent
field). The current error message looks like this:

 LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
    |                    ^^^^^^^^ has alignment larger than 1

This patch changes the report to include the alignment of the violating
field:

 LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
    |                    ^^^^^^^^ has alignment of 4, which is larger than 1

In case of unknown alignments, it will yield:

 LL | struct Foobar<T>(u32, [T; 0]);
    |                       ^^^^^^ may have alignment larger than 1

This allows developers to get a better grasp why a specific field is
rejected. Knowing the alignment of the violating field makes it easier
to judge where that alignment-requirement originates, and thus hopefully
provide better hints on how to mitigate the problem.

This idea was proposed in 2022 in #98071 as part of a bigger change.
This commit simply extracts this error-message change, to decouple it
from the other diagnostic improvements.
2023-07-21 11:04:16 +02:00
clubby789
0453cda59e Don't bail out early when checking invalid repr attr 2023-05-01 15:05:39 +01:00
Obei Sideg
06ff310cf9 Migrate rustc_hir_analysis to session diagnostic
Part 4: Finishing `check/mod.rs` file
2023-04-21 23:50:03 +03:00
Jubilee Young
2edf6c8784 Default repr(C) enums to c_int size
This is what ISO C strongly implies this is correct, and
many processor-specific ABIs imply or mandate this size, so
"everyone" (LLVM, gcc...) defaults to emitting enums this way.
However, this is by no means guaranteed by ISO C,
and the bare-metal Arm targets show it can be overridden,
which rustc supports via `c-enum-min-bits` in a target.json.

The override is a flag named `-fshort-enums` in clang and gcc,
but introducing a CLI flag is probably unnecessary for rustc.
This flag can be used by non-Arm microcontroller targets,
like AVR and MSP430, but it is not enabled for them by default.
Rust programmers who know the size of a target's enums
can use explicit reprs, which also lets them match C23 code.

This change is most relevant to 16-bit targets: AVR and MSP430.
Most of rustc's targets use 32-bit ints, but ILP64 does exist.
Regardless, rustc should now correctly handle enums for
both very small and very large targets.

Thanks to William for confirming MSP430 behavior,
and to Waffle for better style and no-core size_of asserts.

Co-authored-by: William D. Jones <thor0505@comcast.net>
Co-authored-by: Waffle Maybe <waffle.lapkin@gmail.com>
2023-02-16 15:06:17 -08:00
Albert Larsan
cf2dff2b1e
Move /src/test to /tests 2023-01-11 09:32:08 +00:00