Update `unexpected_cfgs` lint for Cargo new `check-cfg` config
This PR updates the diagnostics output of the `unexpected_cfgs` lint for Cargo new `check-cfg` config.
It's a simple and cost-less alternative to the build-script `cargo::rustc-check-cfg` instruction.
```toml
[lints.rust]
unexpected_cfgs = { level = "warn", check-cfg = ['cfg(foo, values("bar"))'] }
```
This PR also adds a Cargo specific section regarding check-cfg and Cargo inside rustc's book (motivation is described inside the file, but mainly check-cfg is a rustc feature not a Cargo one, Cargo only enabled the feature, it does not own it; T-cargo even considers the `check-cfg` lint config to be an implementation detail).
This PR also updates the links to refer to that sub-page when using Cargo from rustc.
As well as updating the lint doc to refer to the check-cfg docs.
~**Not to be merged before https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/13913 reaches master!**~ (EDIT: merged in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125237)
`@rustbot` label +F-check-cfg
r? `@fmease` *(feel free to roll)*
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124800
cc `@epage` `@weihanglo`
coverage: Memoize and simplify counter expressions
When creating coverage counter expressions as part of coverage instrumentation, we often end up creating obviously-redundant expressions like `c1 + (c0 - c1)`, which is equivalent to just `c0`.
To avoid doing so, this PR checks when we would create an expression matching one of 5 patterns, and uses the simplified form instead:
- `(a - b) + b` → `a`.
- `(a + b) - b` → `a`.
- `(a + b) - a` → `b`.
- `a + (b - a)` → `b`.
- `a - (a - b)` → `b`.
Of all the different ways to combine 3 operands and 2 operators, these are the patterns that allow simplification.
(Some of those patterns currently don't occur in practice, but are included anyway for completeness, to avoid having to add them later as branch coverage and MC/DC coverage support expands.)
---
This PR also adds memoization for newly-created (or newly-simplified) counter expressions, to avoid creating duplicates.
This currently makes no difference to the final mappings, but is expected to be useful for MC/DC coverage of match expressions, as proposed by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124278#issuecomment-2106754753.
Suggest setting lifetime in borrowck error involving types with elided lifetimes
```
error: lifetime may not live long enough
--> $DIR/ex3-both-anon-regions-both-are-structs-2.rs:7:5
|
LL | fn foo(mut x: Ref, y: Ref) {
| ----- - has type `Ref<'_, '1>`
| |
| has type `Ref<'_, '2>`
LL | x.b = y.b;
| ^^^^^^^^^ assignment requires that `'1` must outlive `'2`
|
help: consider introducing a named lifetime parameter
|
LL | fn foo<'a>(mut x: Ref<'a, 'a>, y: Ref<'a, 'a>) {
| ++++ ++++++++ ++++++++
```
As can be seen above, it currently doesn't try to compare the `ty::Ty` lifetimes that diverged vs the `hir::Ty` to correctly suggest the following
```
help: consider introducing a named lifetime parameter
|
LL | fn foo<'a>(mut x: Ref<'_, 'a>, y: Ref<'_, 'a>) {
| ++++ ++++++++ ++++++++
```
but I believe this to still be an improvement over the status quo.
Fix#40990.
Remove unnecessary -fembed-bitcode usage now that it's deprecated
This is a partial revert of 6d819a4b8f because https://github.com/rust-lang/cc-rs/pull/812 removed this flag entirely, meaning we shouldn't have to pass this manually anymore
Fix `tests/debuginfo/strings-and-strs`.
It fails on my machine because it embeds pointer addresses in the expected output.
This commit replaces the addresses with `0x[...]`.
r? ```@Mark-Simulacrum```
Make `EvalCtxt` generic over `InferCtxtLike`
...but don't change any of the impls, yet! These can get uplifted as we add more methods to `InferCtxtLike`/`Interner` :3
This is built on top of #125230.
r? lcnr
defrost `RUST_MIN_STACK=ice rustc hello.rs`
I didn't think too hard about testing my previous PR rust-lang/rust#122847 which makes our stack overflow handler assist people in discovering the `RUST_MIN_STACK` variable (which apparently is surprisingly useful for Really Big codebases). After it was merged, some useful comments left in a drive-by review led me to discover I had added an ICE. This reworks the code a bit to explain the rationale, remove the ICE that I introduced, and properly test one of the diagnostics.
fix suggestion in E0373 for !Unpin coroutines
Coroutines can be prefixed with the `static` keyword to make them
`!Unpin`.
However, given the following function:
```rust
fn check() -> impl Sized {
let x = 0;
#[coroutine]
static || {
yield;
x
}
}
```
We currently suggest prefixing `move` before `static`, which is
syntactically incorrect:
```
error[E0373]: coroutine may outlive the current function, but it borrows
...
--> src/main.rs:6:5
|
6 | static || {
| ^^^^^^^^^ may outlive borrowed value `x`
7 | yield;
8 | x
| - `x` is borrowed here
|
note: coroutine is returned here
--> src/main.rs:6:5
|
6 | / static || {
7 | | yield;
8 | | x
9 | | }
| |_____^
help: to force the coroutine to take ownership of `x` (and any other
referenced variables), use the `move` keyword
| // this is syntactically incorrect, it should be `static move ||`
6 | move static || {
| ++++
```
This PR suggests adding `move` after `static` for these coroutines.
I also added a UI test for this case.
Never type unsafe lint improvements
- Move linting code to a separate method
- Remove mentions of `core::convert::absurd` (#124311 was rejected)
- Make the lint into FCW
The last thing is a bit weird though. On one hand it should be `EditionSemanticsChange(2024)`, but on the other hand it shouldn't, because we also plan to break it on all editions some time later. _Also_, it's weird that we don't have `FutureReleaseSemanticsChangeReportInDeps`, IMO "this might cause UB in a future release" is important enough to be reported in deps...
IMO we ought to have three enums instead of [`FutureIncompatibilityReason`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_lint_defs/enum.FutureIncompatibilityReason.html#):
```rust
enum IncompatibilityWhen {
FutureRelease,
Edition(Edition),
}
enum IncompatibilyWhat {
Error,
SemanticChange,
}
enum IncompatibilityReportInDeps {
No,
Yes,
}
```
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123748
Add `fn into_raw_with_allocator` to Rc/Arc/Weak.
Split out from #119761
Add `fn into_raw_with_allocator` for `Rc`/`rc::Weak`[^1]/`Arc`/`sync::Weak`.
* Pairs with `from_raw_in` (which already exists on all 4 types).
* Name matches `Box::into_raw_with_allocator`.
* Associated fns on `Rc`/`Arc`, methods on `Weak`s.
<details> <summary>Future PR/ACP</summary>
As a follow-on to this PR, I plan to make a PR/ACP later to move `into_raw(_parts)` from `Container<_, A: Allocator>` to only `Container<_, Global>` (where `Container` = `Vec`/`Box`/`Rc`/`rc::Weak`/`Arc`/`sync::Weak`) so that users of non-`Global` allocators have to explicitly handle the allocator when using `into_raw`-like APIs.
The current behaviors of stdlib containers are inconsistent with respect to what happens to the allocator when `into_raw` is called (which does not return the allocator)
| Type | `into_raw` currently callable with | behavior of `into_raw`|
| --- | --- | --- |
| `Box` | any allocator | allocator is [dropped](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/src/alloc/boxed.rs.html#1060) |
| `Vec` | any allocator | allocator is [forgotten](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/src/alloc/vec/mod.rs.html#884) |
| `Arc`/`Rc`/`Weak` | any allocator | allocator is [forgotten](https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/sync.rs.html#1487)(Arc) [(sync::Weak)](https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/sync.rs.html#2726) [(Rc)](https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/rc.rs.html#1352) [(rc::Weak)](https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/rc.rs.html#2993) |
In my opinion, neither implicitly dropping nor implicitly forgetting the allocator is ideal; dropping it could immediately invalidate the returned pointer, and forgetting it could unintentionally leak memory. My (to-be) proposed solution is to just forbid calling `into_raw(_parts)` on containers with non-`Global` allocators, and require calling `into_raw_with_allocator`(/`Vec::into_raw_parts_with_alloc`)
</details>
[^1]: Technically, `rc::Weak::into_raw_with_allocator` is not newly added, as it was modified and renamed from `rc::Weak::into_raw_and_alloc`.
Update to LLVM 18.1.6
This rebases our LLVM fork on top of LLVM 18.1.6, which is planned to be the last release of the 18.x series.
Fixes#123695.
Fixes#125053.
r? `@cuviper`
An earlier commit included the change for a suggestion here.
Unfortunately, it also used unwrap instead of dying properly.
Roll out the ~~rice paper~~ EarlyDiagCtxt before we do anything that
might leave a mess.
Coroutines can be prefixed with the `static` keyword to make them
`!Unpin`.
However, given the following function:
```rust
fn check() -> impl Sized {
let x = 0;
#[coroutine]
static || {
yield;
x
}
}
```
We currently suggest prefixing `move` before `static`, which is
syntactically incorrect:
```
error[E0373]: coroutine may outlive the current function, but it borrows
...
--> src/main.rs:6:5
|
6 | static || {
| ^^^^^^^^^ may outlive borrowed value `x`
7 | yield;
8 | x
| - `x` is borrowed here
|
note: coroutine is returned here
--> src/main.rs:6:5
|
6 | / static || {
7 | | yield;
8 | | x
9 | | }
| |_____^
help: to force the coroutine to take ownership of `x` (and any other
referenced variables), use the `move` keyword
| // this is syntactically incorrect, it should be `static move ||`
6 | move static || {
| ++++
```
This PR suggests adding `move` after `static` for these coroutines.
chore: Remove repeated words (extension of #124924)
When I saw #124924 I thought "Hey, I'm sure that there are far more than just two typos of this nature in the codebase". So here's some more typo-fixing.
Some found with regex, some found with a spellchecker. Every single one manually reviewed by me (along with hundreds of false negatives by the tools)
