Clean and enable `rustdoc::unescaped_backticks` for `core/alloc/std/test/proc_macro`
I am not sure if the lint is supposed to be "ready enough" (since it is `allow` by default), but it does catch a couple issues in `core` (`alloc`, `std`, `test` and `proc_macro` are already clean), so I propose making it `warn` in all the crates rendered in the website.
Cc: `@GuillaumeGomez`
- Update system table crc32
- Fix unsound use of Box
- Free exit data
- Code improvements
- Introduce OwnedTable
- Update r-efi to latest version
- Use extended_varargs_abi_support for
install_multiple_protocol_interfaces and
uninstall_multiple_protocol_interfaces
- Fix comments
- Stub out args implementation
Signed-off-by: Ayush Singh <ayushdevel1325@gmail.com>
Clean up more comments near use declarations
#125443 will reformat all use declarations in the repository. There are a few edge cases involving comments on use declarations that require care. This PR fixes them up so #125443 can go ahead with a simple `x fmt --all`. A follow-up to #126717.
r? ``@cuviper``
There are some comments describing multiple subsequent `use` items. When
the big `use` reformatting happens some of these `use` items will be
reordered, possibly moving them away from the comment. With this
additional level of formatting it's not really feasible to have comments
of this type. This commit removes them in various ways:
- merging separate `use` items when appropriate;
- inserting blank lines between the comment and the first `use` item;
- outright deletion (for comments that are relatively low-value);
- adding a separate "top-level" comment.
We also entirely skip formatting for four library files that contain
nothing but `pub use` re-exports, where reordering would be painful.
Stabilize `PanicInfo::message()` and `PanicMessage`
Resolves#66745
This stabilizes the [`PanicInfo::message()`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/panic/struct.PanicInfo.html#method.message) and [`PanicMessage`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/panic/struct.PanicMessage.html).
Demonstration of [custom panic handler](https://github.com/StackOverflowExcept1on/panicker):
```rust
#![no_std]
#![no_main]
extern crate libc;
#[no_mangle]
extern "C" fn main() -> libc::c_int {
panic!("I just panic every time");
}
#[panic_handler]
fn my_panic(panic_info: &core::panic::PanicInfo) -> ! {
use arrayvec::ArrayString;
use core::fmt::Write;
let message = panic_info.message();
let location = panic_info.location().unwrap();
let mut debug_msg = ArrayString::<1024>::new();
let _ = write!(&mut debug_msg, "panicked with '{message}' at '{location}'");
if debug_msg.try_push_str("\0").is_ok() {
unsafe {
libc::puts(debug_msg.as_ptr() as *const _);
}
}
unsafe { libc::exit(libc::EXIT_FAILURE) }
}
```
```
$ cargo +stage1 run --release
panicked with 'I just panic every time' at 'src/main.rs:8:5'
```
- [x] FCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66745#issuecomment-2198143725
r? libs-api
This is possible now that inline const blocks are stable; the idea was
even mentioned as an alternative when `uninit_array()` was added:
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/65580#issuecomment-544200681>
> if it’s stabilized soon enough maybe it’s not worth having a
> standard library method that will be replaceable with
> `let buffer = [MaybeUninit::<T>::uninit(); $N];`
Const array repetition and inline const blocks are now stable (in the
next release), so that circumstance has come to pass, and we no longer
have reason to want `uninit_array()` other than convenience. Therefore,
let’s evaluate the inconvenience by not using `uninit_array()` in
the standard library, before potentially deleting it entirely.
Abort a process when FD ownership is violated
When an owned FD has already been closed before it's dropped that means something else touched an FD in ways it is not allowed to. At that point things can already be arbitrarily bad, e.g. clobbered mmaps. Recovery is not possible.
All we can do is hasten the fire.
Unlike the previous attempt in #124130 this shouldn't suffer from the possibility that FUSE filesystems can return arbitrary errors.
Add support for Arm64EC to the Standard Library
Adds the final pieces so that the standard library can be built for arm64ec-pc-windows-msvc (initially added in #119199)
* Bumps `windows-sys` to 0.56.0, which adds support for Arm64EC.
* Correctly set the `isEC` parameter for LLVM's `writeArchive` function.
* Add `#![feature(asm_experimental_arch)]` to library crates where Arm64EC inline assembly is used, as it is currently unstable.
Document restricted_std
This PR aims to pin down exactly what restricted_std is meant to achieve and what it isn't.
This commit fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware/issues/87 by explaining why the error appears and what the choices the user has. The error describes how std cannot function without knowing about some form of OS/platform support. Any features of std that work without an OS should be moved to core/alloc (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27242https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/103765).
Note that the message says "platform" and "environment" because, since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120232, libstd can be built for some JSON targets. This is still unsupported (all JSON targets probably should be unstable https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware/issues/90), but a JSON target with the right configuration should hopefully have some partial libstd support.
I propose closing https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware/issues/69 as "Won't fix" since any support of std without properly configured os, vendor or env fields is very fragile considering future upgrades of Rust or dependencies. In addition there's no likely path to it being fixed long term (making std buildable for all targets being the only solution). This is distinct from tier 3 platforms with limited std support implemented (and as such aren't restricted_std) because these platforms can conceptually work in the future and std support should mainly improve over time.
The alternative to closing https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware/issues/69 is a new crate feature for std which escapes the restricted_std mechanism in build.rs. It could be used with the -Zbuild-std-features flag if we keep it permanently unstable, which I hope we can do anyway. A minor side-effect in this scenario is that std wouldn't be marked as unstable if documentation for it were generated with build-std.
cc ```@ehuss```
This PR aims to pin down exactly what restricted_std is meant to achieve
and what it isn't.
This commit fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware/issues/87
by explaining why the error appears and what the choices the user has.
The error describes how std cannot function without knowing about some
form of OS/platform support. Any features of std that work without an
OS should be moved to core/alloc (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27242https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/103765).
Note that the message says "platform" and "environment" because, since
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120232, libstd can be built for
some JSON targets. This is still unsupported (all JSON targets probably
should be unstable https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware/issues/90),
but a JSON target with the right configuration should hopefully have
some partial libstd support.
I propose closing https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware/issues/69
as "Won't fix" since any support of std without properly configured os,
vendor or env fields is very fragile considering future upgrades of Rust
or dependencies. In addition there's no likely path to it being fixed
long term (making std buildable for all targets being the only
solution). This is distinct from tier 3 platforms with limited std
support implemented (and as such aren't restricted_std) because these
platforms can conceptually work in the future and std support should
mainly improve over time.
The alternative to closing https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware/issues/69
is a new crate feature for std which escapes the restricted_std
mechanism in build.rs. It could be used with the -Zbuild-std-features
flag if we keep it permanently unstable, which I hope we can do anyway.
A minor side-effect in this scenario is that std wouldn't be marked as
unstable if documentation for it were generated with build-std.
