Support configuring whether to capture backtraces at runtime
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93346
This adds a new API to the `std::panic` module which configures whether and how the default panic hook will emit a backtrace when a panic occurs.
After discussion with `@yaahc` on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/backtrace.20lib.20vs.2E.20panic), this PR chooses to avoid adjusting or seeking to provide a similar API for the (currently unstable) std::backtrace API. It seems likely that the users of that API may wish to expose more specific settings rather than just a global one (e.g., emulating the `env_logger`, `tracing` per-module configuration) to avoid the cost of capture in hot code. The API added here could plausibly be copied and/or re-exported directly from std::backtrace relatively easily, but I don't think that's the right call as of now.
```rust
mod panic {
#[derive(Copy, Clone, Debug, PartialEq, Eq)]
#[non_exhaustive]
pub enum BacktraceStyle {
Short,
Full,
Off,
}
fn set_backtrace_style(BacktraceStyle);
fn get_backtrace_style() -> Option<BacktraceStyle>;
}
```
Several unresolved questions:
* Do we need to move to a thread-local or otherwise more customizable strategy for whether to capture backtraces? See [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79085#issuecomment-727845826) for some potential use cases for this.
* Proposed answer: no, leave this for third-party hooks.
* Bikeshed on naming of all the options, as usual.
* Should BacktraceStyle be moved into `std::backtrace`?
* It's already somewhat annoying to import and/or re-type the `std::panic::` prefix necessary to use these APIs, probably adding a second module to the mix isn't worth it.
Note that PR #79085 proposed a much simpler API, but particularly in light of the desire to fully replace setting environment variables via `env::set_var` to control the backtrace API, a more complete API seems preferable. This PR likely subsumes that one.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #92528 (Make `Fingerprint::combine_commutative` associative)
- #93221 ([borrowck] Fix help on mutating &self in async fns)
- #93542 (Prevent lifetime elision in type alias)
- #93546 (Validate that values in switch int terminator are unique)
- #93571 (better suggestion for duplicated `where` clause)
- #93574 (don't suggest adding `let` due to bad assignment expressions inside of `while` loop)
- #93590 (More let_else adoptions)
- #93592 (Remove unused dep from rustc_arena)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
don't suggest adding `let` due to bad assignment expressions inside of `while` loop
adds a check that our `lhs` expression is actually within the conditional part of the `while` loop, instead of anywhere in the `while` body.
fixes#93486
[borrowck] Fix help on mutating &self in async fns
Previously, when rustc was provided an async function that tried to
mutate through a shared reference to an implicit self (as shown in the
ui test), rustc would suggest modifying the parameter signature
to `&mut` + the fully qualified name of the ty (in the case of the repro
`S`). If a user modified their code to match the suggestion, the
compiler would not accept it.
This commit modifies the suggestion so that when rustc is provided the
ui test that is also attached in this commit, it suggests (correctly)
`&mut self`. We try to be careful about distinguishing between implicit
and explicit self annotations, since the latter seem to be handled
correctly already.
This is my first PR here so I'm pretty sure I probably missed something/could use better terminology. I also didn't try to make the match exhaustive since implicit self is the only real special case that I need to handle (that I'm aware of), and I'm pretty sure there's a cleaner way to do this so any advice would be greatly appreciated! (I'm also not terribly confident about how I wrote the ui tests)
here is your cc as requested `@compiler-errors`
This is an attempt to fix#93093
Make `Fingerprint::combine_commutative` associative
The previous implementation swapped lower and upper 64-bits of a result
of modular addition, so the function was non-associative.
r? `@Aaron1011`
Return an indexmap in `all_local_trait_impls` query
The data structure previously used here required that `DefId` be `Ord`. As part of #90317, we do not want `DefId` to implement `Ord`.
debuginfo: Make sure that type names for closure and generator environments are unique in debuginfo.
Before this change, closure/generator environments coming from different instantiations of the same generic function were all assigned the same name even though they were distinct types with potentially different data layout. Now we append the generic arguments of the originating function to the type name.
This commit also emits `{closure_env#0}` as the name of these types in order to disambiguate them from the accompanying closure function (which keeps being called `{closure#0}`). Previously both were assigned the same name.
NOTE: Changing debuginfo names like this can break pretty printers and other debugger plugins. I think it's OK in this particular case because the names we are changing were ambiguous anyway. In general though it would be great to have a process for doing changes like these.
Fix two incorrect "it's" (typos in comments)
Found one of these while reading the documentation online. The other came up because it's in the same file.
Add missing | between print options
The help text for the newly stabilized print option is missing a | between stack-protector-strategies and link-args.
Fix incorrect panic message in example
The panic message when calling the `connect()` should probably be a message about connection failure, not a message about binding address failure.
Document valid values of the char type
As discussed at #93392, the current documentation on what constitutes a valid char isn't very detailed and is partly on the MAX constant rather than the type itself.
This PR expands on that information, stating the actual numerical range, giving examples of what won't work, and also mentions how a `char` might be a valid USV but still not be a defined character (terminology checked against [Unicode 14.0, table 2-3](https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode14.0.0/ch02.pdf#M9.61673.TableTitle.Table.22.Types.of.Code.Points)).
Make dead code check a query.
Dead code check is run for each invocation of the compiler, even if no modifications were involved.
This PR makes dead code check a query keyed on the module. This allows to skip the check when a module has not changed.
To perform this, a query `live_symbols_and_ignored_derived_traits` is introduced to encapsulate the global analysis of finding live symbols. The second query `check_mod_deathness` outputs diagnostics for each module based on this first query's results.
Continue work on associated const equality
This actually implements some more complex logic for assigning associated consts to values.
Inside of projection candidates, it now defers to a separate function for either consts or
types. To reduce amount of code, projections are now generic over T, where T is either a Type or
a Const. I can add some comments back later, but this was the fastest way to implement it.
It also now finds the correct type of consts in type_of.
---
The current main TODO is finding the const of the def id for the LeafDef.
Right now it works if the function isn't called, but once you use the trait impl with the bound it fails inside projection.
I was hoping to get some help in getting the `&'tcx ty::Const<'tcx>`, in addition to a bunch of other `todo!()`s which I think may not be hit.
r? `@oli-obk`
Updates #92827
Change Termination::report return type to ExitCode
Related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43301
The goal of this change is to minimize the forward compatibility risks in stabilizing Termination. By using the opaque type `ExitCode` instead of an `i32` we leave room for us to evolve the API over time to provide what cross-platform consistency we can / minimize footguns when working with exit codes, where as stabilizing on `i32` would limit what changes we could make in the future in how we represent and construct exit codes.
Implement `RawWaker` and `Waker` getters for underlying pointers
implement #87021
New APIs:
- `RawWaker::data(&self) -> *const ()`
- `RawWaker::vtable(&self) -> &'static RawWakerVTable`
- ~`Waker::as_raw_waker(&self) -> &RawWaker`~ `Waker::as_raw(&self) -> &RawWaker`
This third one is an auxiliary function to make the two APIs above more useful. Since we can only get `&Waker` in `Future::poll`, without this, we need to `transmute` it into `&RawWaker` (relying on `repr(transparent)`) in order to access its data/vtable pointers.
~Not sure if it should be named `as_raw` or `as_raw_waker`. Seems we always use `as_<something-raw>` instead of just `as_raw`. But `as_raw_waker` seems not quite consistent with `Waker::from_raw`.~ As suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/91828#discussion_r770729837, use `as_raw`.
Enable combining `+crt-static` and `relocation-model=pic` on `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu`
Modern `gcc` versions support `-static-pie`, and `rustc` will already fall-back to `-static` if the local `gcc` is too old (and hence this change is optimistic rather than absolute). This brings the `-musl` and `-gnu` targets to feature compatibility (albeit with different default settings).
Of note a `-static` or `-static-pie` binary based on glibc that uses NSS-backed functions (`gethostbyname` or `getpwuid` etc.) need to have access to the `libnss_X.so.2` libraries and any of their dynamic dependencies.
I wasn't sure about the `# only`/`# ignore` changes (I've not got a `gnux32` toolchain to test with hence not also enabling `-static-pie` there).
Disable drop range analysis
The previous PR, #93165, still performed the drop range analysis despite ignoring the results. Unfortunately, there were ICEs in the analysis as well, so some packages failed to build (see the issue #93197 for an example). This change further disables the analysis and just provides dummy results in that case.
Carefully remove bounds checks from some chunk iterator functions
So, I was writing code that requires the equivalent of `rchunks(N).rev()` (which isn't the same as forward `chunks(N)` — in particular, if the buffer length is not a multiple of `N`, I must handle the "remainder" first).
I happened to look at the codegen output of the function (I was actually interested in whether or not a nested loop was being unrolled — it was), and noticed that in the outer `rchunks(n).rev()` loop, LLVM seemed to be unable to remove the bounds checks from the iteration: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/Tnz4MYY8f (this panic was from the split_at in `RChunks::next_back`).
After doing some experimentation, it seems all of the `next_back` in the non-exact chunk iterators have the issue: (`Chunks::next_back`, `RChunks::next_back`, `ChunksMut::next_back`, and `RChunksMut::next_back`)...
Even worse, the forward `rchunks` iterators sometimes have the issue as well (... but only sometimes). For example https://rust.godbolt.org/z/oGhbqv53r has bounds checks, but if I uncomment the loop body, it manages to remove the check (which is bizarre, since I'd expect the opposite...). I suspect it's highly dependent on the surrounding code, so I decided to remove the bounds checks from them anyway. Overall, this change includes:
- All `next_back` functions on the non-`Exact` iterators (e.g. `R?Chunks(Mut)?`).
- All `next` functions on the non-exact rchunks iterators (e.g. `RChunks(Mut)?`).
I wasn't able to catch any of the other chunk iterators failing to remove the bounds checks (I checked iterations over `r?chunks(_exact)?(_mut)?` with constant chunk sizes under `-O3`, `-Os`, and `-Oz`), which makes sense, since these were the cases where it was harder to prove the bounds check correct to remove...
In fact, it took quite a bit of thinking to convince myself that using unchecked_ here was valid — so I'm not really surprised that LLVM had trouble (although compilers are slightly better at this sort of reasoning than humans). A consequence of that is the fact that the `// SAFETY` comment for these are... kinda long...
---
I didn't do this for, or even think about it for, any of the other iteration methods; just `next` and `next_back` (where it mattered). If this PR is accepted, I'll file a follow up for someone (possibly me) to look at the others later (in particular, `nth`/`nth_back` looked like they had similar logic), but I wanted to do this now, as IMO `next`/`next_back` are the most important here, since they're what gets used by the iteration protocol.
---
Note: While I don't expect this to impact performance directly, the panic is a side effect, which would otherwise not exist in these loops. That is, this could prevent the compiler from being able to move/remove/otherwise rework a loop over these iterators (as an example, it could not delete the code for a loop whose body computes a value which doesn't get used).
Also, some like to be able to have confidence this code has no panicking branches in the optimized code, and "no bounds checks" is kinda part of the selling point of Rust's iterators anyway.
