"innermost", "outermost", "leftmost", and "rightmost" don't need hyphens
These are all standard dictionary words and don't require hyphenation.
-----
Encountered an instance of this in error messages and it bugged me, so I
figured I'd fix it across the entire codebase.
Add a test case for #131164
The upstream has already been fixed, but it won't be backported to LLVM 19.
r? jieyouxu or compiler
try-job: x86_64-gnu-stable
Minor tweaks to `compare_impl_item.rs`
1. Stop using the `InstantiatedPredicates` struct for `hybrid_preds` in `compare_impl_item.rs`, since we never actually push anything into the `spans` part of it.
2. Remove redundant impl args and don't do useless identity substitution, prefer calling `instantiate_identity`.
Set `signext` or `zeroext` for integer arguments on RISC-V and LoongArch64
This PR contains 3 commits:
- the first one introduces a new function `adjust_for_rust_abi` in `rustc_target`, and moves the x86 specific adjustment code into it;
- the second one adds RISC-V specific adjustment code into it, which sets `signext` or `zeroext` attribute for integer arguments.
- **UPDATE**: added the 3rd commit to apply the same adjustment for LoongArch64.
rustdoc: Document `markdown` module.
Rustdoc markdown handling is currently split between:
- html::markdown, which contains all the meaty login
- markdown, which is only used for when rustdoc renders a standalone markdown file
Adds module-level doc-comment to markdown, and rename the function so it's clear that it's doing IO (instead of just rendering to a string).
nightly feature tracking: get rid of the per-feature bool fields
The `struct Features` that tracks which features are enabled has a ton of public `bool`-typed fields that are basically caching the result of looking up the corresponding feature in `enabled_lang_features`. Having public fields with an invariant is not great, so at least they should be made private. However, it turns out caching these lookups is actually [not worth it](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131321#issuecomment-2402068336), so this PR just entirely gets rid of these fields. (The alternative would be to make them private and have a method for each of them to expose them in a read-only way. Most of the diff of this PR would be the same in that case.)
r? `@nnethercote`
do not implement `Relate` for "boring" types
and update some macros while we're at it. This means we don't have to implement `TypeVisitable` for them.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Optimize `Rc<T>::default`
The missing piece of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131460.
Also refactored `Arc<T>::default` by using a safe `NonNull::from(Box::leak(_))` to replace the unnecessarily unsafe call to `NonNull::new_unchecked(Box::into_raw(_))`. The remaining unsafety is coming from `[Rc|Arc]::from_inner`, which is safe from the construction of `[Rc|Arc]Inner`.
analyse: remove unused uncanonicalized field
This field is unused and was only relevant when actually printing proof trees. Right now this simply causes proof tree building to leak a bunch of inference vars 😁
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Run most `core::num` tests in const context too
This adds some infrastructure for something I was going to use in #131566, but it felt worthwhile enough on its own to merge/discuss separately.
Essentially, right now we tend to rely on UI tests to ensure that things work in const context, rather than just using library tests. This uses a few simple macro tricks to make it *relatively* painless to execute tests in both runtime and compile-time context. And this only applies to the numeric tests, and not anything else.
Recommended to review without whitespace in the diff.
cc `@RalfJung`
Represent `hir::TraitBoundModifiers` as distinct parts in HIR
Stop squashing distinct `polarity` and `constness` into a single `hir::TraitBoundModifier`.
This PR doesn't attempt to handle all the corner cases correctly, since the old code certainly did not either; but it should be much easier for, e.g., rustc devs working on diagnostics, or clippy devs, to actually handle constness and polarity correctly.
try-job: x86_64-gnu-stable
better default capacity for str::replace
Adds smarter capacity for str::replace in cases where we know that the output will be at least as long as the original string.
x86-32 float return for 'Rust' ABI: treat all float types consistently
This helps with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131819: for our own ABI on x86-32, we want to *never* use the float registers. The previous logic only considered F32 and F64, but skipped F16 and F128. So I made the logic just apply to all float types.
try-job: i686-gnu
try-job: i686-gnu-nopt
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
compiletest: Make `line_directive` return a `DirectiveLine`
This reduces the need to juggle raw tuples, and opens up the possibility of moving more parts of directive parsing into `line_directive`.
In order to make the main change possible, this PR also (partly) separates the debugger-command parsing from the main directive parser. That cleanup removes support for `[rev]` in debugger commands, which is not used by any tests.
Move `cmp_in_dominator_order` out of graph dominator computation
Dominator-order information is only needed for coverage graphs, and is easy enough to collect by just traversing the graph again.
This avoids wasted work when computing graph dominators for any other purpose.
add `TestFloatParse` to `tools.rs` for bootstrap
add TestFloatParse to tools for bootstrap, I am not sure this is what the issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128012 discussion wants.
try-job: aarch64-apple
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. 🤷
Validate args are correct for `UnevaluatedConst`, `ExistentialTraitRef`/`ExistentialProjection`
For the `Existential*` ones, we have to do some adjustment to the args list to deal with the missing `Self` type, so we introduce a `debug_assert_existential_args_compatible` function to the interner as well.
Fixup Windows verbatim paths when used with the `include!` macro
On Windows, the following code can fail if the `OUT_DIR` environment variable is a [verbatim path](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/path/enum.Prefix.html) (i.e. begins with `\\?\`):
```rust
include!(concat!(env!("OUT_DIR"), "/src/repro.rs"));
```
This is because verbatim paths treat `/` literally, as if it were just another character in the file name.
The good news is that the standard library already has code to fix this. We can simply use `components` to normalize the path so it works as intended.
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.
