Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
- fix for divergence
- fix error message
- fix another cranelift test
- fix some cranelift things
- don't set the NORETURN option for naked asm
- fix use of naked_asm! in doc comment
- fix use of naked_asm! in run-make test
- use `span_bug` in unreachable branch
Gate `repr(Rust)` correctly on non-ADT items
#114201 added `repr(Rust)` but didn't add any attribute validation to it like `repr(C)` has, to only allow it on ADT items.
I consider this code to be nonsense, for example:
```
#[repr(Rust)]
fn foo() {}
```
Reminder that it's different from `extern "Rust"`, which *is* valid on function items. But also this now disallows `repr(Rust)` on modules, impls, traits, etc.
I'll crater it, if it looks bad then I'll add an FCW.
---
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/labels/relnotes: Compatibility (minor breaking change).
Simplify some nested `if` statements
Applies some but not all instances of `clippy::collapsible_if`. Some ended up looking worse afterwards, though, so I left those out. Also applies instances of `clippy::collapsible_else_if`
Review with whitespace disabled please.
Add an internal lint that warns when accessing untracked data
Some methods access data that is not tracked by the query system and should be used with caution. As suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128815#issuecomment-2275488683, in this PR I propose a lint (modeled on the `potential_query_instability` lint) that warns when using some specially-annotatted functions.
I can't tell myself if this lint would be that useful, compared to renaming `Steal::is_stolen` to `is_stolen_untracked`. This would depend on whether there are other functions we'd want to lint like this. So far it seems they're called `*_untracked`, which may be clear enough.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Don't Suggest Labeling `const` and `unsafe` Blocks
Fixes#128604
Previously, both anonymous constant blocks (E.g. The labeled block
inside `['_'; 'block: { break 'block 1 + 2; }]`) and inline const
blocks (E.g. `const { ... }`) were considered to be the same
kind of blocks. This caused the compiler to incorrectly suggest
labeling both the blocks when only anonymous constant blocks can be
labeled.
This PR adds an other enum variant to `Context` so that both the
blocks can be handled appropriately.
Also, adds some doc comments and removes unnecessary `&mut` in a
couple of places.
Implement a first version of RFC 3525: struct target features
This PR is an attempt at implementing https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3525, behind a feature gate `struct_target_features`.
There's obviously a few tasks that ought to be done before this is merged; in no particular order:
- add proper error messages
- add tests
- create a tracking issue for the RFC
- properly serialize/deserialize the new target_features field in `rmeta` (assuming I even understood that correctly :-))
That said, as I am definitely not a `rustc` expert, I'd like to get some early feedback on the overall approach before fixing those things (and perhaps some pointers for `rmeta`...), hence this early PR :-)
Here's an example piece of code that I have been using for testing - with the new code, the calls to intrinsics get correctly inlined:
```rust
#![feature(struct_target_features)]
use std::arch::x86_64::*;
/*
// fails to compile
#[target_feature(enable = "avx")]
struct Invalid(u32);
*/
#[target_feature(enable = "avx")]
struct Avx {}
#[target_feature(enable = "sse")]
struct Sse();
/*
// fails to compile
extern "C" fn bad_fun(_: Avx) {}
*/
/*
// fails to compile
#[inline(always)]
fn inline_fun(_: Avx) {}
*/
trait Simd {
fn do_something(&self);
}
impl Simd for Avx {
fn do_something(&self) {
unsafe {
println!("{:?}", _mm256_setzero_ps());
}
}
}
impl Simd for Sse {
fn do_something(&self) {
unsafe {
println!("{:?}", _mm_setzero_ps());
}
}
}
struct WithAvx {
#[allow(dead_code)]
avx: Avx,
}
impl Simd for WithAvx {
fn do_something(&self) {
unsafe {
println!("{:?}", _mm256_setzero_ps());
}
}
}
#[inline(never)]
fn dosomething<S: Simd>(simd: &S) {
simd.do_something();
}
fn main() {
/*
// fails to compile
Avx {};
*/
if is_x86_feature_detected!("avx") {
let avx = unsafe { Avx {} };
dosomething(&avx);
dosomething(&WithAvx { avx });
}
if is_x86_feature_detected!("sse") {
dosomething(&unsafe { Sse {} })
}
}
```
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129107
add repr to the allowlist for naked functions
Fixes#129412 (combining unstable features #90957 (`#![feature(naked_functions)]`) and #82232 (`#![feature(fn_align)]`)
rustdoc: clean up tuple <-> primitive conversion docs
This adds a minor missing feature to `fake_variadic`, so that it can render `impl From<(T,)> for [T; 1]` correctly.
Use cnum for extern crate data key
Noticed this when fixing #129184. I still have yet to put up a fix for that (mostly because I'm too lazy to minimize a test, that will come soon though).
Emit an error for invalid use of the linkage attribute
fixes#128486
Currently, the use of the linkage attribute for Mod, Impl,... is incorrectly permitted. This PR will correct this issue by generating errors, and I've also added some UI test cases for it.
Related: #128552.
