Allow calling these functions without `unsafe` blocks in editions up
until 2021, but don't trigger the `unused_unsafe` lint for `unsafe`
blocks containing these functions.
Fixes#27970.
Fixes#90308.
CC #124866.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #124655 (Add `-Zfixed-x18`)
- #125693 (Format all source files in `tests/coverage/`)
- #125700 (coverage: Avoid overflow when the MC/DC condition limit is exceeded)
- #125705 (Reintroduce name resolution check for trying to access locals from an inline const)
- #125708 (tier 3 target policy: clarify the point about producing assembly)
- #125715 (remove unneeded extern crate in rmake test)
- #125719 (Extract coverage-specific code out of `compiletest::runtest`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Extract coverage-specific code out of `compiletest::runtest`
I had been vaguely intending to do this for a while, but seeing #89475 on the compiletest dashboard inspired me to actually go and do it.
This moves a few hundred lines of coverage-specific code out of the main module, making navigation a bit easier. There is still a small amount of coverage-specific logic in broader functions in that module, since it can't easily be moved.
This is just cut-and-paste plus fixing visibility and imports, so no functional changes.
I also removed the unit test for anonymizing line numbers in MC/DC reports, as foreshadowed by the comment I wrote when adding it. That functionality is now adequately exercised by the actual snapshot tests for MC/DC coverage.
(Removing the test now avoids the need to move it, or to make the function it calls visible.)
tier 3 target policy: clarify the point about producing assembly
I think that is already the intended meaning of the policy, but I am not sure.
Cc ``@rust-lang/compiler``
Reintroduce name resolution check for trying to access locals from an inline const
fixes#125676
I removed this without replacement in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124650 without considering the consequences
coverage: Avoid overflow when the MC/DC condition limit is exceeded
Fix for the test failure seen in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124571#issuecomment-2099620869.
If we perform this subtraction first, it can sometimes overflow to -1 before the addition can bring its value back to 0.
That behaviour seems to be benign, but it nevertheless causes test failures in compiler configurations that check for overflow.
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
Format all source files in `tests/coverage/`
Currently we can't automatically enforce formatting on tests (see #125637), but we can at least keep things relatively tidy by occasionally running the formatter manually.
This was done by temporarily commenting out the `"/tests/"` exclusion in `rustfmt.toml`, and then running:
- `x fmt tests/coverage`
- `x test coverage --bless`
(This PR also includes a few cosmetic tweaks to some of the affected files, to convince rustfmt to format them in the way we want.)
``@rustbot`` label +A-code-coverage
Use `rmake` for `windows-` run-make tests
Convert some Makefile tests to recipes.
I renamed "issue-85441" to "windows-ws2_32" as I think it's slightly more descriptive. EDIT: `llvm-readobj` seems to work for reading DLL imports so I've used that instead of `objdump`.
cc #121876
We want to only demand that we check for all components we expect
if we actually built the components we expect, which means
we built the LLVM. Otherwise, it isn't worth checking.
Make lint: `lint_dropping_references` `lint_forgetting_copy_types` `lint_forgetting_references` give suggestion if possible.
This is a follow-up PR of #125433. When it's merged, I want change lint `dropping_copy_types` to use the same `Subdiagnostic` struct `UseLetUnderscoreIgnoreSuggestion` which is added in this PR.
Hi, Thank you(`@Urgau` ) again for your help in the previous PR. If your time permits, please also take a look at this one.
r? compiler
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
don't inhibit random field reordering on repr(packed(1))
`inhibit_struct_field_reordering_opt` being false means we exclude this type from random field shuffling. However, `packed(1)` types can still be shuffled! The logic was added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48528 since it's pointless to reorder fields in packed(1) types (there's no padding that could be saved) -- but that shouldn't inhibit `-Zrandomize-layout` (which did not exist at the time).
We could add an optimization elsewhere to not bother sorting the fields for `repr(packed)` types, but I don't think that's worth the effort.
This *does* change the behavior in that we may now reorder fields of `packed(1)` structs (e.g. if there are niches, we'll try to move them to the start/end, according to `NicheBias`). We were always allowed to do that but so far we didn't. Quoting the [reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/type-layout.html):
> On their own, align and packed do not provide guarantees about the order of fields in the layout of a struct or the layout of an enum variant, although they may be combined with representations (such as C) which do provide such guarantees.
don't inhibit random field reordering on repr(packed(1))
`inhibit_struct_field_reordering_opt` being false means we exclude this type from random field shuffling. However, `packed(1)` types can still be shuffled! The logic was added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48528 since it's pointless to reorder fields in packed(1) types (there's no padding that could be saved) -- but that shouldn't inhibit `-Zrandomize-layout` (which did not exist at the time).
We could add an optimization elsewhere to not bother sorting the fields for `repr(packed)` types, but I don't think that's worth the effort.
This *does* change the behavior in that we may now reorder fields of `packed(1)` structs (e.g. if there are niches, we'll try to move them to the start/end, according to `NicheBias`). We were always allowed to do that but so far we didn't. Quoting the [reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/type-layout.html):
> On their own, align and packed do not provide guarantees about the order of fields in the layout of a struct or the layout of an enum variant, although they may be combined with representations (such as C) which do provide such guarantees.
If we perform this subtraction and then add 1, the subtraction can sometimes
overflow to -1 before the addition can bring its value back to 0. That
behaviour seems to be benign, but it nevertheless causes test failures in
compiler configurations that check for overflow.
We can avoid the overflow by instead subtracting (N - 1), which is
algebraically equivalent, and more closely matches what the code is actually
trying to do.
