compiler: Never debug_assert in codegen
In the name of Turing and his Hoarey heralds, assert our truths before creating a monster!
The `rustc_codegen_llvm` and `rustc_codegen_ssa` crates are fairly critical for rustc's correctness. Small mistakes here can easily result in undefined behavior, since a "small mistake" can mean something like "link and execute the wrong code". We should probably run any and all asserts in these modules unconditionally on whether this is a "debug build", and damn the costs in performance.
...Especially because the costs in performance seem to be *nothing*. It is not clear how much correctness we gain here, but I'll take free correctness improvements.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #127054 (Reorder trait bound modifiers *after* `for<...>` binder in trait bounds)
- #127528 (Replace ASCII control chars with Unicode Control Pictures)
- #127872 (Migrate `pointer-auth-link-with-c`, `c-dynamic-rlib` and `c-dynamic-dylib` `run-make` tests to rmake)
- #128111 (Do not use question as label)
- #128160 (Don't ICE when auto trait has assoc ty in old solver)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Don't ICE when auto trait has assoc ty in old solver
Kinda a pointless change to make, but it's observable w/o the feature gate, so let's just fix it. I reintroduced this ICE when I removed the "auto impl" kind from `ImplSource` in #112687.
Fixes#117829Fixes#127746
Do not use question as label
We don't want to have questions in the diagnostic output. Instead, we use wording that communicates uncertainty, like "might":
```
error[E0432]: unresolved import `spam`
--> $DIR/import-from-missing-star-3.rs:2:9
|
LL | use spam::*;
| ^^^^ you might be missing crate `spam`
|
= help: consider adding `extern crate spam` to use the `spam` crate
```
Migrate `pointer-auth-link-with-c`, `c-dynamic-rlib` and `c-dynamic-dylib` `run-make` tests to rmake
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
Please try:
try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: i686-mingw
try-job: aarch64-apple
Replace ASCII control chars with Unicode Control Pictures
Replace ASCII control chars like `CR` with Unicode Control Pictures like `␍`:
```
error: bare CR not allowed in doc-comment
--> $DIR/lex-bare-cr-string-literal-doc-comment.rs:3:32
|
LL | /// doc comment with bare CR: '␍'
| ^
```
Centralize the checking of unicode char width for the purposes of CLI display in one place. Account for the new replacements. Remove unneeded tracking of "zero-width" unicode chars, as we calculate these in the `SourceMap` as needed now.
Reorder trait bound modifiers *after* `for<...>` binder in trait bounds
This PR suggests changing the grammar of trait bounds from:
```
[CONSTNESS] [ASYNCNESS] [?] [BINDER] [TRAIT_PATH]
const async ? for<'a> Sized
```
to
```
([BINDER] [CONSTNESS] [ASYNCNESS] | [?]) [TRAIT_PATH]
```
i.e., either
```
? Sized
```
or
```
for<'a> const async Sized
```
(but not both)
### Why?
I think it's strange that the binder applies "more tightly" than the `?` trait polarity. This becomes even weirder when considering that we (or at least, I) want to have `async` trait bounds expressed like:
```
where T: for<'a> async Fn(&'a ()) -> i32,
```
and not:
```
where T: async for<'a> Fn(&'a ()) -> i32,
```
### Fallout
No crates on crater use this syntax, presumably because it's literally useless. This will require modifying the reference grammar, though.
### Alternatives
If this is not desirable, then we can alternatively keep parsing `for<'a>` after the `?` but deprecate it with either an FCW (or an immediate hard error), and begin parsing `for<'a>` *before* the `?`.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #122192 (Do not try to reveal hidden types when trying to prove auto-traits in the defining scope)
- #126042 (Implement `unsigned_signed_diff`)
- #126548 (Improved clarity of documentation for std::fs::create_dir_all)
- #127717 (Fix malformed suggestion for repeated maybe unsized bounds)
- #128046 (Fix some `#[cfg_attr(not(doc), repr(..))]`)
- #128122 (Mark `missing_fragment_specifier` as `FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps`)
- #128135 (std: use duplicate thread local state in tests)
- #128140 (Remove Unnecessary `.as_str()` Conversions)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
We don't want to have questions in the diagnostic output. Instead, we use wording that communicates uncertainty, like "might":
```
error[E0432]: unresolved import `spam`
--> $DIR/import-from-missing-star-3.rs:2:9
|
LL | use spam::*;
| ^^^^ you might be missing crate `spam`
|
= help: consider adding `extern crate spam` to use the `spam` crate
```
Mark `missing_fragment_specifier` as `FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps`
We are moving toward forbidding `missing_fragment_specifier` either in edition 2024 or unconditionally. Make a first step toward this by ensuring crates that rely on the old behavior are reported when used as dependencies.
Tracking issue: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128143>
Fix malformed suggestion for repeated maybe unsized bounds
Fixes#127441
Now when we encounter something like `foo(a : impl ?Sized + ?Sized)`, instead of suggesting removal of both bounds and leaving `foo(a: impl )` behind, we suggest changing the first bound to `Sized` and removing the second bound, resulting in `foo(a: impl Sized)`.
Although the issue was reported for impl trait types, it also occurred with regular param bounds. So if we encounter `foo<T: ?Sized + ?Sized>(a: T)` we now detect that all the bounds are `?Sized` and therefore emit the suggestion to remove the entire predicate `: ?Sized + ?Sized` resulting in `foo<T>(a: T)`.
Lastly, if we encounter a situation where some of the bounds are something other than `?Sized`, then we emit separate removal suggestions for each `?Sized` bound. E.g. if we see `foo(a: impl ?Sized + Bar + ?Sized)` or `foo<T: ?Sized + Bar + ?Sized>(a: T)` we emit suggestions such that the user will be left with `foo(a : impl Bar)` or `foo<T: Bar>(a: T)` respectively.
Implement `unsigned_signed_diff`
<!--
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>
-->
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126041
Do not try to reveal hidden types when trying to prove auto-traits in the defining scope
fixes#99793
this avoids the cycle error by just causing a selection error, which is not fatal. We pessimistically assume that freeze does not hold, which is always a safe assumption.
rustdoc: clean up and fix ord violations in item sorting
Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128139 with a few minor changes:
- The name sorting function is changed to follow the [version sort] from the style guide
- the `cmp` function is redesigned to more obviously make a partial order, by always return `cmp()` of the same variable as the `!=` above
[version sort]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/style-guide/index.html#sorting
Based on e3fdafc263 with a few
minor changes:
- The name sorting function is changed to follow the [version sort]
from the style guide
- the `cmp` function is redesigned to more obviously make a
partial order, by always return `cmp()` of the same variable as
the `!=` above
[version sort]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/style-guide/index.html#sorting
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Gomez <guillaume1.gomez@gmail.com>
We are moving toward forbidding `missing_fragment_specifier` either in
edition 2024 or unconditionally. Make a first step toward this by
ensuring crates that rely on the old behavior are reported when used as
dependencies.
Tracking issue: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128143>
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126152 (size_of_val_raw: for length 0 this is safe to call)
- #127252 (Add edge-case examples to `{count,leading,trailing}_{ones,zeros}` methods)
- #127374 (Tweak "wrong # of generics" suggestions)
- #127457 (Make tidy fast without compromising case alternation)
- #127480 (Fix build failure on vxworks #127084 )
- #127733 (Replace some `mem::forget`'s with `ManuallyDrop`)
- #128120 (Gate `AsyncFn*` under `async_closure` feature)
- #128131 (Import `c_void` rather than using the full path)
- #128133 (Improve spans on evaluated `cfg_attr`s.)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Improve spans on evaluated `cfg_attr`s.
When converting something like `#![cfg_attr(cond, attr)]` into `#![attr]`, we currently duplicate the `#` token and the `!` token. But weirdly, there is also this comment:
// We don't really have a good span to use for the synthesized `[]`
// in `#[attr]`, so just use the span of the `#` token.
Maybe that comment used to be true? But now it is false: we can duplicate the existing delimiters (and their spans and spacing), much like we do for the `#` and `!`.
This commit does that, thus removing the incorrect comment, and improving the spans on `Group`s in a few proc-macro tests.
`@petrochenkov`
Import `c_void` rather than using the full path
Follow up to #128092. As requested, this imports `c_void` in more places. I also fixed up some imports to use `core` for core types instead of `crate`. While that is not strictly necessary, I think ideally things in `sys/pal` should only depend on itself or core so that the code is less spaghetti. We're far away from that ideal at the moment but I can at least try to slowly move in that direction.
Also this forbids `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` for library/std/src/sys/pal/windows by fixing up the remaining unsafe bits that are just punting their unsafe requirements onto the caller of the `unsafe` function (or definition macro).
<!--
r? workingjubilee
-->
Gate `AsyncFn*` under `async_closure` feature
T-lang has not come to a consensus on the naming of async closure callable bounds, and as part of allowing the async closures RFC merge, we agreed to place `AsyncFn` under the same gate as `async Fn` so that these syntaxes can be evaluated in parallel.
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3668#issuecomment-2246435537
r? oli-obk
Replace some `mem::forget`'s with `ManuallyDrop`
> but I would like to see a larger effort to replace all uses of `mem::forget`.
_Originally posted by `@saethlin` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127584#issuecomment-2226087767_
So,
r? `@saethlin`
Sorry, I have finished writing all of this before I got your response.
Fix build failure on vxworks #127084
PR to address issue #127084 .
1. Skip `reset_segpipe` for vxworks
2. Return unimplemented error for vxworks from settimes and lchown
3. Temporarily skip dirfd for vxworks
4. Add allow unused unsafe on read_at and write_at functions in unix/fs.rs
5. Using cfg disable ON_BROKEN_PIPE_FLAG_USED and on_broken_pipe_flag_used() for vxworks
6. Remove old crate::syscommon:🧵:min_stack() reference from process_vxworks.rs and update to set stack size of rtpthread
Thank you.
Make tidy fast without compromising case alternation
Fixes tidy speed issue but still catches case-alternation, enabled for other `style.rs` files, and also detects test files better.
r? `@albertlarsan68`
`@Nilstrieb`
Add edge-case examples to `{count,leading,trailing}_{ones,zeros}` methods
Some architectures (i386) do not define a "count leading zeros" instruction, they define a "find first set bit" instruction (`bsf`) whose result is undefined when given zero (ie none of the bits are set). Of this family of bitwise operations, I always forget which of these things is potentially undefined for zero, and I'm also not 100% sure that Rust provides a hard guarantee for the results of these methods when given zero. So I figured there are others who have these same uncertainties, and it would be good to resolve them and answer the question via extending these doc examples/tests.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Find_first_set#Hardware_support for more info on i386 and `bsf` on zero.
Do not use global caches if opaque types can be defined
fixes#119272
r? `@lcnr`
This is certainly a crude way to make the cache sound wrt opaque types, but since perf lets us get away with this, let's do it in the old solver and let the new solver fix this correctly once and for all.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122192#issuecomment-2149252655
When converting something like `#![cfg_attr(cond, attr)]` into
`#![attr]`, we currently duplicate the `#` token and the `!` token. But
weirdly, there is also this comment:
// We don't really have a good span to use for the synthesized `[]`
// in `#[attr]`, so just use the span of the `#` token.
Maybe that comment used to be true? But now it is false: we can
duplicate the existing delimiters (and their spans and spacing), much
like we do for the `#` and `!`.
This commit does that, thus removing the incorrect comment, and
improving the spans on `Group`s in a few proc-macro tests.
Make ast `MutVisitor` have the same method name and style as `Visitor`
It doesn't map 100% because some `MutVisitor` methods can filter or even expand to multiple items, but consistency seems nicer.
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127615
