Improve cfg and check-cfg configuration
This PR improves cfg and check-cfg configuration by:
1. Extracting both logic under a common module (to improve the connection between the two)
2. Adding more documentation, in particular some steps when adding a new cfg
I also added my-self as mention in our triagebot conf for the new module.
Inspired by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123411#discussion_r1554056681
Add aarch64-apple-visionos and aarch64-apple-visionos-sim tier 3 targets
Introduces `aarch64-apple-visionos` and `aarch64-apple-visionos-sim` as tier 3 targets. This allows native development for the Apple Vision Pro's visionOS platform.
This work has been tracked in https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/642. There is a corresponding `libc` change https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/pull/3568 that is not required for merge.
Ideally we would be able to incorporate [this change](https://github.com/gimli-rs/object/pull/626) to the `object` crate, but the author has stated that a release will not be cut for quite a while. Therefore, the two locations that would reference the xrOS constant from `object` are hardcoded to their MachO values of 11 and 12, accompanied by TODOs to mark the code as needing change. I am open to suggestions on what to do here to get this checked in.
# Tier 3 Target Policy
At this tier, the Rust project provides no official support for a target, so we place minimal requirements on the introduction of targets.
> 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.)
See [src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-visionos.md](e88379034a/src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-visionos.md)
> 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.
This naming scheme matches `$ARCH-$VENDOR-$OS-$ABI` which is matches the iOS Apple Silicon simulator (`aarch64-apple-ios-sim`) and other Apple 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 besubject 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.
This contribution is fully available under the standard Rust license with no additional legal restrictions whatsoever. This PR does not introduce any new dependency less permissive than the Rust license policy.
The new targets do not depend on proprietary libraries.
> 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.
This new target mirrors the standard library for watchOS and iOS, with minor divergences.
> 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.
Documentation is provided in [src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-visionos.md](e88379034a/src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/apple-visionos.md)
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
I acknowledge these requirements and intend to ensure that they are met.
This target does not touch any existing tier 2 or tier 1 targets and should not break any other targets.
Let nils know about changes to target docs
i'll probably expand the paths and add a message after #121051 but i honestly don't expect that to land very soon lol, so it would be nice to get notified about changes already and watch what's happening there
approve this pr if you're cool
Move check-cfg diagnostic logic into a separate file
as well as adding some triagebot mentions (for me) for check-cfg related files.
``@rustbot`` label +F-check-cfg
add myself to rotation
Won't have too much capacity, but I am able to contribute something. Will be rotating reviews if I run out of capacity :)
r? `````@ghost`````
`````@bors````` r+ rollup
This profile originally made sense when download-ci-llvm = if-unchanged
didn't exist and we had the bad tradeoff of "never modify or always
compile".
Thankfully, these grim times are over and we have discovered clean
water, so the only differentiator between the two profiles is the
codegen profile having LLVM assertions. Adding them doesn't cause that
much of a slowdown, <10% on UI tests from an unscientific benchmark.
It also had LLVM warnings when compiling, which makes sense for every
compiler contributor brave enough to compile LLVM.
The way I removed is by just issueing a nice error message. Given that
everyone with this profile should be a contributor and not someone like
a distro who is more upset when things break, this should be fine.
If it isn't, we can always fall back to just letting codegen mean
compiler.
Add myself to review rotation (and a rustbot ping)
I've still got a ~month of unemployment ( 🤞 ), so I'll put some of that time into reviewing.
Unrelatedly, I've now poked enough at match lowering that I want to follow what happens to it, so I added a rustbot ping.
Error codes are integers, but `String` is used everywhere to represent
them. Gross!
This commit introduces `ErrCode`, an integral newtype for error codes,
replacing `String`. It also introduces a constant for every error code,
e.g. `E0123`, and removes the `error_code!` macro. The constants are
imported wherever used with `use rustc_errors::codes::*`.
With the old code, we have three different ways to specify an error code
at a use point:
```
error_code!(E0123) // macro call
struct_span_code_err!(dcx, span, E0123, "msg"); // bare ident arg to macro call
\#[diag(name, code = "E0123")] // string
struct Diag;
```
With the new code, they all use the `E0123` constant.
```
E0123 // constant
struct_span_code_err!(dcx, span, E0123, "msg"); // constant
\#[diag(name, code = E0123)] // constant
struct Diag;
```
The commit also changes the structure of the error code definitions:
- `rustc_error_codes` now just defines a higher-order macro listing the
used error codes and nothing else.
- Because that's now the only thing in the `rustc_error_codes` crate, I
moved it into the `lib.rs` file and removed the `error_codes.rs` file.
- `rustc_errors` uses that macro to define everything, e.g. the error
code constants and the `DIAGNOSTIC_TABLES`. This is in its new
`codes.rs` file.
Remove myself from review rotation
Still willing to do reviews (and make it through my backlog), but I don't have the bandwidth to be on the rotation right now.
Don't add needs-triage to A-diagnostics
A-diagnostics is already labeled correctly thanks to the template and there usually isn't much to do on those issues, so it's fine to just add them to the pile.
A-diagnostics is already labeled correctly thanks to the template and there usually isn't much to do on those issues, so it's fine to just add them to the pile.
Comment out `change-id` in `config.example.toml`
This way, we only update CONFIG_CHANGE_HISTORY for major changes, which is much simpler (and updating example.toml doesn't make much sense)
r? `@Kobzol` (as this was mainly your idea)
This way, we only update CONFIG_CHANGE_HISTORY for major changes, which is
much simpler (and updating example.toml doesn't make much sense)
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
Remove @JohnTitor from diagnostics pings
I've been inactive around diagnostics for a while so would like to remove myself from the diagnostics-related ping groups for now.
Allow setting `rla` labels via `rustbot`
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-log-analyzer/pull/75 adds a `rla-silenced` label flag that will turn off RLA updates for non-bors tests. Allow setting that labels and others via `rustbot`.
Because bootstrap lib is already large and complicated, this should
make the "bumping change-id" process easier.
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
Revert "Remove TaKO8Ki from reviewers"
ref #116061
It's been a month since this pull request, and I now have some available time for reviews. Would it be okay to revisit it as a reviewer?
This reverts commit 8e06b25e39.
r? `@Nilstrieb`
Enable triagebot no-merges check
Follow-up on https://github.com/rust-lang/triagebot/pull/1704
### Motivation
Occasionally, a merge commit like cb5c011670 makes it past manual review and gets merged into master.
At one point, we tried adding a check to CI to prevent this from happening (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/105058), but that ended up [problematic](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106319#issuecomment-1368144076) and was [reverted](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106320). This kind of check is simply too fragile for CI, and there must be a way for a human to override the bot's decision.
The capability to detect and warn about merge commits has been present in triagebot for quite some time, but was never enabled at rust-lang/rust, possibly due to concerns about false positives on rollup and subtree sync PRs. This PR intends to alleviate those concerns.
### Configuration
This configuration will exclude rollup PRs and subtree sync PRs from merge commit detection, and it will post the default warning message and add the `has-merge-commits` and `S-waiting-on-author` labels when merge commits are detected on other PRs.
The eventual vision is to have bors refuse to merge if the `has-merge-commits` label is present. A reviewer can still force the merge by removing that label if they so wish.
### Note for contributors
The rollup tool should add that label automatically, but anyone performing subtree updates should begin including "subtree update" in the titles of those PRs, to avoid false positives.
r? infra
## Open Questions
1. This configuration uses the default message that's built into triagebot:
> There are merge commits (commits with multiple parents) in your changes. We have a [no merge policy](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/git.html#no-merge-policy) so these commits will need to be removed for this pull request to be merged.
>
> You can start a rebase with the following commands:
> ```shell-session
> $ # rebase
> $ git rebase -i master
> $ # delete any merge commits in the editor that appears
> $ git push --force-with-lease
> ```
Any changes to this are easy, I'll just have to add a `message` option. Should we mention the excluded titles in the message?
