Windows: Synchronize asynchronous pipe reads and writes
On Windows, the pipes used for spawned processes are opened for asynchronous access but `read` and `write` are done using the standard methods that assume synchronous access. This means that the buffer (and variables on the stack) may be read/written to after the function returns.
This PR ensures reads/writes complete before returning. Note that this only applies to pipes we create and does not affect the standard file read/write methods.
Fixes#95411
Handle rustc_const_stable attribute in library feature collector
The library feature collector in [compiler/rustc_passes/src/lib_features.rs](551b4fa395/compiler/rustc_passes/src/lib_features.rs) has only been looking at `#[stable(…)]`, `#[unstable(…)]`, and `#[rustc_const_unstable(…)]` attributes, while ignoring `#[rustc_const_stable(…)]`. The consequences of this were:
- When any const feature got stabilized (changing one or more `rustc_const_unstable` to `rustc_const_stable`), users who had previously enabled that unstable feature using `#![feature(…)]` would get told "unknown feature", rather than rustc's nicer "the feature … has been stable since … and no longer requires an attribute to enable".
This can be seen in the way that https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93957#issuecomment-1079794660 failed after rebase:
```console
error[E0635]: unknown feature `const_ptr_offset`
--> $DIR/offset_from_ub.rs:1:35
|
LL | #![feature(const_ptr_offset_from, const_ptr_offset)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
- We weren't enforcing that a particular feature is either stable everywhere or unstable everywhere, and that a feature that has been stabilized has the same stabilization version everywhere, both of which we enforce for the other stability attributes.
This PR updates the library feature collector to handle `rustc_const_stable`, and fixes places in the standard library and test suite where `rustc_const_stable` was being used in a way that does not meet the rules for a stability attribute.
allow arbitrary inherent impls for builtin types in core
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/487. Slightly adjusted after some talks with `@m-ou-se` about the requirements of `t-libs-api`.
This adds a crate attribute `#![rustc_coherence_is_core]` which allows arbitrary impls for builtin types in core.
For other library crates impls for builtin types should be avoided if possible. We do have to allow the existing stable impls however. To prevent us from accidentally adding more of these in the future, there is a second attribute `#[rustc_allow_incoherent_impl]` which has to be added to **all impl items**. This only supports impls for builtin types but can easily be extended to additional types in a future PR.
This implementation does not check for overlaps in these impls. Perfectly checking that requires us to check the coherence of these incoherent impls in every crate, as two distinct dependencies may add overlapping methods. It should be easy enough to detect if it goes wrong and the attribute is only intended for use inside of std.
The first two commits are mostly unrelated cleanups.
Strict Provenance MVP
This patch series examines the question: how bad would it be if we adopted
an extremely strict pointer provenance model that completely banished all
int<->ptr casts.
The key insight to making this approach even *vaguely* pallatable is the
ptr.with_addr(addr) -> ptr
function, which takes a pointer and an address and creates a new pointer
with that address and the provenance of the input pointer. In this way
the "chain of custody" is completely and dynamically restored, making the
model suitable even for dynamic checkers like CHERI and Miri.
This is not a formal model, but lots of the docs discussing the model
have been updated to try to the *concept* of this design in the hopes
that it can be iterated on.
See #95228
Ensure io::Error's bitpacked repr doesn't accidentally impl UnwindSafe
Sadly, I'm not sure how to easily test that we don't impl a trait, though (or can libstd use `where io::Error: !UnwindSafe` or something).
Fixes#95203
Stabilize Termination and ExitCode
From https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43301
This PR stabilizes the Termination trait and associated ExitCode type. It also adjusts the ExitCode feature flag to replace the placeholder flag with a more permanent name, as well as splitting off the `to_i32` method behind its own permanently unstable feature flag.
This PR stabilizes the termination trait with the following signature:
```rust
pub trait Termination {
fn report(self) -> ExitCode;
}
```
The existing impls of `Termination` are effectively already stable due to the prior stabilization of `?` in main.
This PR also stabilizes the following APIs on exit code
```rust
#[derive(Clone, Copy, Debug)]
pub struct ExitCode(_);
impl ExitCode {
pub const SUCCESS: ExitCode;
pub const FAILURE: ExitCode;
}
impl From<u8> for ExitCode { /* ... */ }
```
---
All of the previous blockers have been resolved. The main ones that were resolved recently are:
* The trait's name: We decided against changing this since none of the alternatives seemed particularly compelling. Instead we decided to end the bikeshedding and stick with the current name. ([link to the discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Termination.2FExit.20Status.20Stabilization/near/269793887))
* Issues around platform specific representations: We resolved this issue by changing the return type of `report` from `i32` to the opaque type `ExitCode`. That way we can change the underlying representation without affecting the API, letting us offer full support for platform specific exit code APIs in the future.
* Custom exit codes: We resolved this by adding `From<u8> for ExitCode`. We choose to only support u8 initially because it is the least common denominator between the sets of exit codes supported by our current platforms. In the future we anticipate adding platform specific extension traits to ExitCode for constructors from larger or negative numbers, as needed.
Fix build on i686-apple-darwin systems
Replace `target_arch = "x86_64"` with `not(target_arch = "aarch64")` so that i686-apple-darwin systems dynamically choose implementation.
Move std::sys::{mutex, condvar, rwlock} to std::sys::locks.
This cleans up the the std::sys modules a bit by putting the locks in a single module called `locks` rather than spread over the three modules `mutex`, `condvar`, and `rwlock`. This makes it easier to organise lock implementations, which helps with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93740.
Fold aarch64 feature +fp into +neon
Arm's FEAT_FP and Feat_AdvSIMD describe the same thing on AArch64:
The Neon unit, which handles both floating point and SIMD instructions.
Moreover, a configuration for AArch64 must include both or neither.
Arm says "entirely proprietary" toolchains may omit floating point:
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102374/0101/Data-processing---floating-point
In the Programmer's Guide for Armv8-A, Arm says AArch64 can have
both FP and Neon or neither in custom implementations:
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0024/a/AArch64-Floating-point-and-NEON
In "Bare metal boot code for Armv8-A", enabling Neon and FP
is just disabling the same trap flag:
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0527/a
In an unlikely future where "Neon and FP" become unrelated,
we can add "[+-]fp" as its own feature flag.
Until then, we can simplify programming with Rust on AArch64 by
folding both into "[+-]neon", which is valid as it supersets both.
"[+-]neon" is retained for niche uses such as firmware, kernels,
"I just hate floats", and so on.
I am... pretty sure no one is relying on this.
An argument could be made that, as we are not an "entirely proprietary" toolchain, we should not support AArch64 without floats at all. I think that's a bit excessive. However, I want to recognize the intent: programming for AArch64 should be simplified where possible. For x86-64, programmers regularly set up illegal feature configurations because it's hard to understand them, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89586. And per the above notes, plus the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/86941, there should be no real use cases for leaving these features split: the two should in fact always go together.
- Fixesrust-lang/rust#95002.
- Fixesrust-lang/rust#95064.
- Fixesrust-lang/rust#95122.
