Introduce CoercePointeeWellformed for coherence checks at typeck stage
Fix#135206
This is the first PR to introduce the "wellformedness" check for `derive(CoercePointee)`.
This patch introduces a new error code to cover all the prerequisites of the said macro. The checks that is enforced with this patch is whether the data is indeed `struct` and whether the layout is set to `repr(transparent)`.
A following series of patch will arrive later to address the following concern.
1. #135217 so that we would only admit one single coercion on one type parameter, and leave the rest for future consideration in tandem of development of other coercion rules.
1. Enforcement of data field requirements.
**An open question** is whether there is a good schema to encode the `#[pointee]` as well, so that we could also check if the `#[pointee]` type parameter is indeed `?Sized`.
``@rustbot`` label F-derive_coerce_pointee
Some miscellaneous edition-related library tweaks
Some library edition tweaks that can be done separately from upgrading the whole standard library to edition 2024 (which is blocked on getting the submodules upgraded, for example)
Update bootstrap compiler and rustfmt
The rustfmt version we previously used formats things differently from what the latest nightly rustfmt does. This causes issues for subtrees that get formatted both in-tree and in their own repo. Updating the rustfmt used in-tree solves those issues. Also bumped the bootstrap compiler as the stage0 update command always updates both at the same
time.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #134679 (Windows: remove readonly files)
- #136213 (Allow Rust to use a number of libc filesystem calls)
- #136530 (Implement `x perf` directly in bootstrap)
- #136601 (Detect (non-raw) borrows of null ZST pointers in CheckNull)
- #136659 (Pick the max DWARF version when LTO'ing modules with different versions )
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Make `AsyncFnOnce`, `AsyncFnMut`, `AsyncFn` non-`#[fundamental]`
Address the issue #136723 on nightly (the issue will only *actually* be fixed with a beta backport).
Because the neutral element of `<fNN as iter::Sum>` was changed to
`neg_zero`, the documentation needed to be updated, as it was reporting
inadequate information about what should be expected from the return.
Co-authored-by: Jubilee <workingjubilee@gmail.com>
Rename `slice::take...` methods to `split_off...`
This rename was discussed and recommended in a recent t-libs meeting.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62280
There's an additional commit here which modifies internals of unstable `OneSidedRange` APIs in order to implement `split_off` methods in a panic-free way (remove `unreachable!()`) as recommended in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/88502/files#r760177240. I can split this out into a separate PR if needed.
implement inherent str constructors
implement #131114
this implements
- str::from_utf8
- str::from_utf8_mut
- str::from_utf8_unchecked
- str::from_utf8_unchecked_mut
i left `std::str::from_raw_parts` and `std::str::from_raw_parts_mut` out of this as those are unstable and were not mentioned by the tracking issue or the original pull request, but i can add those here as well.
i was also unsure of what to do with the `rustc_const_(un)stable` attributes: i removed the `#[rustc_const_stable]` attribute from `str::from_utf8`, `str::from_utf8_unchecked` and `str::from_utf8_unchecked_mut`, and left the`#[rust_const_unstable]` in `str::from_utf8_mut` (btw why is that one not const stable yet with #57349 merged?).
is there a way to redirect users to the stable `std::str::from_utf8` instead of only saying "hey this is unstable"?
for now i just removed the check for `str::from_utf8` in the test in `tests/ui/suggestions/suggest-std-when-using-type.rs`.
Mark `std::fmt::from_fn` as `#[must_use]`
While working on #135494 I managed to shoot my own foot a few times by forgetting to actually use the result of `fmt::from_fn`, so I think a `#[must_use]` could be appropriate!
Didn't have a good message to put in the attr so left it blank, still unstable so we can come back to it I guess?
cc #117729 (and a huge +1 for getting it stabilized, it's very useful IMHO)
#[contracts::requires(...)] + #[contracts::ensures(...)]
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128044
Updated contract support: attribute syntax for preconditions and postconditions, implemented via a series of desugarings that culminates in:
1. a compile-time flag (`-Z contract-checks`) that, similar to `-Z ub-checks`, attempts to ensure that the decision of enabling/disabling contract checks is delayed until the end user program is compiled,
2. invocations of lang-items that handle invoking the precondition, building a checker for the post-condition, and invoking that post-condition checker at the return sites for the function, and
3. intrinsics for the actual evaluation of pre- and post-condition predicates that third-party verification tools can intercept and reinterpret for their own purposes (e.g. creating shims of behavior that abstract away the function body and replace it solely with the pre- and post-conditions).
Known issues:
* My original intent, as described in the MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/759) was to have a rustc-prefixed attribute namespace (like rustc_contracts::requires). But I could not get things working when I tried to do rewriting via a rustc-prefixed builtin attribute-macro. So for now it is called `contracts::requires`.
* Our attribute macro machinery does not provide direct support for attribute arguments that are parsed like rust expressions. I spent some time trying to add that (e.g. something that would parse the attribute arguments as an AST while treating the remainder of the items as a token-tree), but its too big a lift for me to undertake. So instead I hacked in something approximating that goal, by semi-trivially desugaring the token-tree attribute contents into internal AST constucts. This may be too fragile for the long-term.
* (In particular, it *definitely* breaks when you try to add a contract to a function like this: `fn foo1(x: i32) -> S<{ 23 }> { ... }`, because its token-tree based search for where to inject the internal AST constructs cannot immediately see that the `{ 23 }` is within a generics list. I think we can live for this for the short-term, i.e. land the work, and continue working on it while in parallel adding a new attribute variant that takes a token-tree attribute alongside an AST annotation, which would completely resolve the issue here.)
* the *intent* of `-Z contract-checks` is that it behaves like `-Z ub-checks`, in that we do not prematurely commit to including or excluding the contract evaluation in upstream crates (most notably, `core` and `std`). But the current test suite does not actually *check* that this is the case. Ideally the test suite would be extended with a multi-crate test that explores the matrix of enabling/disabling contracts on both the upstream lib and final ("leaf") bin crates.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #134777 (Enable more tests on Windows)
- #135621 (Move some std tests to integration tests)
- #135844 ( Add new tool for dumping feature status based on tidy )
- #136167 (Implement unstable `new_range` feature)
- #136334 (Extract `core::ffi` primitives to a separate (internal) module)
Failed merges:
- #136201 (Removed dependency on the field-offset crate, alternate approach)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add `cast_signed` and `cast_unsigned` methods for `NonZero` types
Requested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125882 .
Note that this keeps the same names as the methods currently present on other
integer types. If we want to rename them, we can rename them all at the same
time.
Extract `core::ffi` primitives to a separate (internal) module
### Introduce library/core/src/ffi/primitives.rs
The regex preprocessing for PR #133944 would be more robust if the relevant types from core/src/ffi/mod.rs were first moved to library/core/src/ffi/primitives.rs, then there isn't a need to deal with traits / c_str / va_list / whatever might wind up in that module in the future
r? `@tgross35`
Implement unstable `new_range` feature
Switches `a..b`, `a..`, and `a..=b` to resolve to the new range types.
For rust-lang/rfcs#3550
Tracking issue #123741
also adds the re-export that was missed in the original implementation of `new_range_api`
Display of integers without raw pointers and without overflowing_literals
The benchmarks as is measure formatting speed of literals. The first commit `black_box`-es input to simulate runtime speed instead.
The second commit replaces `unsafe` pointer optimizations with plain array indices. The performance is equivalent on Apple M1. Needs peer review on Intel.
Happy to do the 128-bit version too if such change is welcome.
This has now been approved as a language feature and no longer needs
a `rustc_` prefix.
Also change the `contracts` feature to be marked as incomplete and
`contracts_internals` as internal.
1. Document the new intrinsics.
2. Make the intrinsics actually check the contract if enabled, and
remove `contract::check_requires` function.
3. Use panic with no unwind in case contract is using to check for
safety, we probably don't want to unwind. Following the same
reasoning as UB checks.
The extended syntax for function signature that includes contract clauses
should never be user exposed versus the interface we want to ship
externally eventually.
