Stabilize `#![feature(target_feature_11)]`
## Stabilization report
### Summary
Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes.
Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits.
However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe.
```rust
// Demonstration function
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn avx2() {}
fn foo() {
// Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure
// that AVX is available first.
unsafe {
avx2();
}
}
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn bar() {
// Calling `avx2` here is safe.
avx2();
}
```
### Test cases
Tests for this feature can be found in [`src/test/ui/rfcs/rfc-2396-target_feature-11/`](b67ba9ba20/src/test/ui/rfcs/rfc-2396-target_feature-11/).
### Edge cases
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73631
Closures defined inside functions marked with `#[target_feature]` inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits.
```rust
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn qux() {
let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe
let f: fn() = my_closure;
}
```
This means that in order to call a function with `#[target_feature]`, you must show that the target-feature is available while the function executes *and* for as long as whatever may escape from that function lives.
### Documentation
- Reference: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1181
---
cc tracking issue #69098
r? `@ghost`
Avoid invoking typeck from borrowck
This PR attempts to reduce direct dependencies between typeck and MIR-related queries. The goal is to have all the information transit either through THIR or through dedicated queries that avoid depending on the whole `TypeckResults`.
In a first commit, we store the type information that MIR building requires into THIR. This avoids edges between mir_built and typeck.
In the second and third commit, we wrap informations around closures (upvars, kind origin and user-provided signature) to avoid borrowck depending on typeck information.
There should be a single remaining borrowck -> typeck edge in the good path, due to inline consts.
Commit some new solver tests
Lazy norm is hard.
`<?0 as Trait>::Assoc = ?0` ... probably should emit an alias-eq goal, but currently we don't do that. Right now it fails with a cyclical ty error.
Also committed a check-pass test that broken when I attempted to fix this (unsuccessfully).
r? types
Move IpAddr, SocketAddr and V4+V6 related types to `core`
Implements RFC https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2832. The RFC has completed FCP with disposition merge, but is not yet merged.
Moves IP types to `core` as specified in the RFC.
The full list of moved types is: `IpAddr`, `Ipv4Addr`, `Ipv6Addr`, `SocketAddr`, `SocketAddrV4`, `SocketAddrV6`, `Ipv6MulticastScope` and `AddrParseError`.
Doing this move was one of the main driving arguments behind #78802.
MIR-Validate StorageLive.
`StorageLive` statements on a local which already has storage is banned by miri.
This check is easy enough, and can detect bugs in MIR opts.
Don't project specializable RPITIT projection
This effective rejects specialization + RPITIT/AFIT (usages of `impl Trait` in traits) because the implementation is significantly complicated over making regular "default" trait method bodies work.
I have another PR that experimentally fixes all this, but the code may not be worth investing in.
Treat `str` as containing `[u8]` for auto trait purposes
Wanted to gauge ``@rust-lang/lang`` and ``@rust-lang/types`` teams' thoughts on treating `str` as "containing" a `[u8]` slice for auto-trait purposes.
``@dtolnay`` brought this up in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/13231#issuecomment-1399386472 as a blocker for future `str` type librarification, and I think it's both a valid concern and very easy to fix. I'm interested in actually doing that `str` type librarification (#107939), but this probably should be considered in the mean time regardless of that PR.
r? types for the impl, though this definitely needs an FCP.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #107062 (Do some cleanup of doc/index.md)
- #107890 (Lint against `Iterator::map` receiving a callable that returns `()`)
- #108431 (Add regression test for #107918)
- #108432 (test: drop unused deps)
- #108436 (make "proc macro panicked" translatable)
- #108444 (docs/test: add UI test and docs for `E0476`)
- #108449 (Do not lint ineffective unstable trait impl for unresolved trait)
- #108456 (Complete migrating `ast_passes` to derive diagnostics)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
docs/test: add UI test and docs for `E0476`
Final undocumented error code. Not entirely sure about wording in the docs.
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61137.
r? ```@compiler-errors```
cc ```@compiler-errors```
Implement -Zlink-directives=yes/no
`-Zlink-directives=no` will ignored `#[link]` directives while compiling a crate, so nothing is emitted into the crate's metadata. The assumption is that the build system already knows about the crate's native dependencies and can provide them at link time without these directives.
This is another way to address issue # #70093, which is currently addressed by `-Zlink-native-libraries` (implemented in #70095). The latter is implemented at link time, which has the effect of ignoring `#[link]` in *every* crate. This makes it a very large hammer as it requires all native dependencies to be known to the build system to be at all usable, including those in sysroot libraries. I think this means its effectively unused, and definitely under-used.
Being able to control this on a crate-by-crate basis should make it much easier to apply when needed.
I'm not sure if we need both mechanisms, but we can decide that later.
cc `@pcwalton` `@cramertj`
diagnostics: remove inconsistent English article "this" from E0107
Consider [`tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/issue-102768.stderr`][issue-102768.stderr], the error message where it gives additional notes about where the associated type is defined, and how the dead code lint doesn't have an article, like in [`tests/ui/lint/dead-code/issue-85255.stderr`][issue-85255.stderr]. They don't have articles, so it seems unnecessary to have one here.
[issue-102768.stderr]: 07c993eba8/tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/issue-102768.stderr
[issue-85255.stderr]: 07c993eba8/tests/ui/lint/dead-code/issue-85255.stderr
parser: provide better suggestions and errors on closures with braces missing
We currently provide wrong suggestions and unhelpful errors on closure bodies with braces missing.
For example, given the following code:
```rust
fn main() {
let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
}
```
the current output is:
```
error: expected expression, found `)`
--> ./main.rs:2:30
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^ expected expression
error: closure bodies that contain statements must be surrounded by braces
--> ./main.rs:2:25
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^
3 | }
| ^
|
note: statement found outside of a block
--> ./main.rs:2:29
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ---^ this `;` turns the preceding closure into a statement
| |
| this expression is a statement because of the trailing semicolon
note: the closure body may be incorrectly delimited
--> ./main.rs:2:23
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^^^^^^ this is the parsed closure...
3 | }
| - ...but likely you meant the closure to end here
help: try adding braces
|
2 ~ let _x = Box::new(|x| {x+1;);
3 ~ }}
|
error: expected `;`, found `}`
--> ./main.rs:2:32
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^ help: add `;` here
3 | }
| - unexpected token
error: aborting due to 3 previous errors
```
We got 3 errors, but all but the second are unnecessary or just wrong.
This commit allows outputting correct suggestions and errors. The above code would output like this:
```
error: closure bodies that contain statements must be surrounded by braces
--> ./main.rs:2:25
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^ ^
|
note: statement found outside of a block
--> ./main.rs:2:29
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ---^ this `;` turns the preceding closure into a statement
| |
| this expression is a statement because of the trailing semicolon
note: the closure body may be incorrectly delimited
--> ./main.rs:2:23
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^^^^^^ - ...but likely you meant the closure to end here
| |
| this is the parsed closure...
help: try adding braces
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x| {x+1;});
| + +
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/107959.
r? diagnostics
Fix ICE in 'duplicate diagnostic item' diagnostic
Not sure how to add this in a test; I found it by mistakenly running `cargo fix --lib -p std` rather than `x fix` at the root.
Add test for bad cast with deferred projection equality
1. Unification during coercion (`Coerce::unify`) needs to consider deferred projection obligations (at least pass over them with `predicate_may_hold` or something, to disqualify any totally wrong unifications) -- otherwise, we'll shallowly consider `<u8 as Add>::Output` and `char` as coercible during `FnCtxt::try_coerce`, which will fail later when the nested obligations are registered and processed.
2. Cast checking needs to be able to structurally normalize types so it sees `u8` instead of `<u8 as Add>::Output`. Otherwise it'll always consider the latter as part of a non-primitive cast. Currently `FnCtxt::normalize` doesn't do anything useful here, interestingly.
I tried looking into both of these and it's not immediately clear where to refactor existing typeck code to fix this (at least the latter), but I'm gonna commit a test for it at least so we don't forget. This is one of the issues that's keeping us from building larger projects.
implement const iterator using `rustc_do_not_const_check`
Previous experiment: #102225.
Explanation: rather than making all default methods work under `const` all at once, this uses `rustc_do_not_const_check` as a workaround to "trick" the compiler to not run any checks on those other default methods. Any const implementations are only required to implement the `next` method. Any actual calls to the trait methods other than `next` will either error in compile time (at CTFE runs), or run the methods correctly if they do not have any non-const operations. This is extremely easy to maintain, remove, or improve.
Consider `tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/issue-102768.stderr`,
the error message where it gives additional notes about where the associated
type is defined, and how the dead code lint doesn't have an article,
like in `tests/ui/lint/dead-code/issue-85255.stderr`. They don't have
articles, so it seems unnecessary to have one here.
