Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125962 (Update tracking issue for `const_binary_heap_new_in`)
- #126770 (Add elem_offset and related methods)
- #127481 (Remove generic lifetime parameter of trait `Pattern`)
- #128043 (Docs for core::primitive: mention that "core" can be shadowed, too, so we should write "::core")
- #128092 (Remove wrapper functions from c.rs)
- #128100 (Allow to pass a full path for `run-make` tests)
- #128106 (Fix return type of FileAttr methods on AIX target)
- #128108 (ensure std step before preparing sysroot)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
ensure std step before preparing sysroot
When using download-rustc, any stage other than 0 or 1 (e.g., cargo +stage2 build/doc) will fail to find std while compiling on simple rust sources. Ensuring the std step fixes this issue.
r? Kobzol
Fix return type of FileAttr methods on AIX target
At some point it seems `SystemTime::new` changed from returning `SystemTime` to `io::Result<SystemTime>`. This seems to have been addressed on other platforms, but was never changed for AIX.
This was caught by running
```
python3 x.py build --host x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu --target powerpc64-ibm-aix
```
Allow to pass a full path for `run-make` tests
It's common (at least for me) to pass a full path to a `run-make` test (including the `rmake.rs` file) and to see that it isn't found, which is a bit frustrating.
With these changes, we can now optionally pass the `rmake.rs` (or even `Makefile`) at the end of the path.
cc ```@jieyouxu```
r? ```@Kobzol```
Remove wrapper functions from c.rs
I'd like for the windows `c.rs` just to contain the basic platform definitions and not anything higher level unless absolutely necessary. So this removes some wrapper functions that weren't really necessary in any case. The functions are only used in a few places which themselves are relatively thin wrappers. The "interesting" bit is that we had an `AlertableIoFn` that abstracted over `ReadFileEx` and `WriteFileEx`. I've replaced this with a closure.
Also I removed an `#[allow(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]` while I was moving things around.
Remove generic lifetime parameter of trait `Pattern`
Use a GAT for `Searcher` associated type because this trait is always implemented for every lifetime anyway.
cc #27721
Update tracking issue for `const_binary_heap_new_in`
This PR updates the tracking issue of `const_binary_heap_new_in` feature:
- Old issue: #112353
- New issue: #125961
Fix tidy check if book submodule is not checked out
This fixes tidy in a checkout without submodules. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127786 added a new cargo workspace, and the corresponding checks in tidy. There is code in tidy to skip those checks if the submodule is checked out, but that code assumed the root of the workspace was also the root of the submodule. With `rustbook`, the root is `src/tools/rustbook`, but the submodules it needs are in the `src/doc` directory.
The solution here is to explicitly list which submodules are needed instead of assuming the root is also the submodule.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125886 (Migrate run make issue 15460)
- #126898 (Migrate `run-make/link-framework` to `rmake.rs`)
- #126994 (Support lists and stylings in more places for `rustc --explain`)
- #127990 (Migrate `lto-linkage-used-attr`, `no-duplicate-libs` and `pgo-gen-no-imp-symbols` `run-make` tests to rmake)
- #128060 (Fix inclusion of `wasm-component-ld` in dist artifacts)
- #128082 (Note closure captures when reporting cast to fn ptr failed)
- #128098 (make it possible to disable download-rustc if it's incompatible)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
When using download-rustc, any stage other than 0 or 1 (e.g., cargo +stage2 build/doc) will
fail to find std while compiling on simple rust sources. Ensuring the rustc step fixes
this issue.
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
make it possible to disable download-rustc if it's incompatible
Primarily needed by CI runners to avoid handling download-rustc incompatible options one by one on shell scripts.
This will significantly help to #122709.
Note closure captures when reporting cast to fn ptr failed
Fixes#128078
We already had logic to point out a closure having captures when that's possibly the source of a coercion error to `fn()`, but we weren't reporting it during an explicit `as` cast.
Fix inclusion of `wasm-component-ld` in dist artifacts
This is another accidental omission from #126967 (in addition to #127867) which fixes an issue where `wasm-component-ld` isn't distributed via rustup just yet because while it's present in the sysroot it's not present in the tarballs.
Migrate `lto-linkage-used-attr`, `no-duplicate-libs` and `pgo-gen-no-imp-symbols` `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).
try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: aarch64-apple
try-job: armhf-gnu
try-job: test-various
try-job: x86_64-gnu-llvm-18
At some point it seems `SystemTime::new` changed from returning `SystemTime` to `io::Result<SystemTime>`. This seems to have been addressed on other platforms, but was never changed for AIX.
This was caught by running
```
python3 x.py build --host x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu --target powerpc64-ibm-aix
```
Primarily needed by CI runners to avoid handling download-rustc incompatible
options one by one on shell scripts.
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
Replace askama with rinja
Another askama maintainer and myself forked it and named the fork rinja. The whole difference is explained in this [blog post](https://blog.guillaume-gomez.fr/articles/2024-07-16+docs.rs+switching+jinja+template+framework+from+tera+to+rinja) (not publicly released yet, waiting for docs.rs to deploy the new version using it before). But in short, rinja got a lot of improvements and compiles faster, so I think it's definitely worth it to use it in rustdoc as well.
r? `@notriddle`
std: Unsafe-wrap actually-universal platform code
Every platform compiles the unsafe parts of this code, so just clean this up. Almost entirely a whitespace diff.
Reword E0626 to mention static coroutine, add structured suggestion for adding `static`
Not certain how to make the example feel less artificial. 🤷
My main point though is that we should probably emphasize that the first solution to making a coroutine allow a borrow across an await is making it `static`.
Also adds a structured suggestion.
Cleanup compiletest dylib name calculation
Use `std::env::consts::{DLL_PREFIX, DLL_EXTENSION}` for dylib name calculation which is more accurate for the various different platforms, and is more likely to be looked at by target maintainers.
cc ``@bzEq`` (as this impacts how compiletest handles AIX dll extensions)
treat `&raw (const|mut) UNSAFE_STATIC` implied deref as safe
Fixesrust-lang/rust#125833
As reported in that and related issues, `static mut STATIC_MUT: T` is very often used in embedded code, and is in many ways equivalent to `static STATIC_CELL: SyncUnsafeCell<T>`. The Rust expression of `&raw mut STATIC_MUT` and `SyncUnsafeCell::get(&STATIC_CELL)` are approximately equal, and both evaluate to `*mut T`. The library function is safe because it has *declared itself* to be safe. However, the raw ref operator is unsafe because all uses of `static mut` are considered unsafe, even though the static's value is not used by this expression (unlike, for example, `&STATIC_MUT`).
We can fix this unnatural difference by simply adding the proper exclusion for the safety check inside the THIR unsafeck, so that we do not declare it unsafe if it is not.
While the primary concern here is `static mut`, this change is made for all instances of an "unsafe static", which includes a static declared inside `extern "abi" {}`. Hypothetically, we could go as far as generalizing this to all instances of `&raw (const|mut) *ptr`, but today we do not, as we have not actually considered the range of possible expressions that use a similar encoding. We do not even extend this to thread-local equivalents, because they have less clear semantics.
Add NuttX based targets for RISC-V and ARM
Apache NuttX is a real-time operating system (RTOS) with an emphasis on standards compliance and small footprint. It is scalable from 8-bit to 64-bit microcontroller environments. The primary governing standards in NuttX are POSIX and ANSI standards.
NuttX adopts additional standard APIs from Unix and other common RTOSs, such as VxWorks. These APIs are used for functionality not available under the POSIX and ANSI standards. However, some APIs, like fork(), are not appropriate for deeply-embedded environments and are not implemented in NuttX.
For brevity, many parts of the documentation will refer to Apache NuttX as simply NuttX.
I'll be adding libstd support for NuttX in the future, but for now I'll just add the targets.
Tier 3 policy:
> A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target
> maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target.
> (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
I will be the target maintainer for this target on matters that pertain to the NuttX part of the triple. For matters pertaining to the riscv or arm part of the triple, there should be no difference from all other targets. If there are issues, I will address issues regarding the target.
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a
> target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same
> name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and
> naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust
> (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to
> diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially
> once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important
> even for a tier 3 target.
This is a new supported OS, so I have taken the origin target like `riscv32imac-unknown-none-elf` or `thumbv7m-none-eabi` and changed the `os` section to `nuttx`.
> Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless
> absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if
> the name of the target makes people extremely likely to form incorrect
> beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to
> disambiguate it.
I feel that the target name does not introduce any ambiguity.
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not
> create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for
> Rust developers or users.
The only unusual requirement for building the compiler-builtins crate is a standard RISC-V or ARM C compiler supported by cc-rs, and using this target does not require any additional software beyond what is shipped by rustup.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
All of the additional code will use Apache-2.0.
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust
> license (`MIT OR Apache-2.0`).
Agreed, and there is no problem here.
> The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other
> host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend
> on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This
> applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding
> new license exceptions (as specified by the `tidy` tool in the
> rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library
> or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a
> user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be
> subject to any new license requirements.
No new dependencies are added.
> Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other
> code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling
> from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries.
> Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary runtime
> libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications
> built for the target, but those libraries must not be required for code
> generation for the target; cross-compilation to the target must not require
> such libraries at all. For instance, `rustc` built for the target may
> depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library,
> but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code
> optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the
> Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the
> scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
Linking is performed by rust-lld
> "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous"
> legal/licensing terms include but are *not* limited to: non-disclosure
> requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements
> (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms,
> requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular
> Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability
> for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that
> adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its
> developers or users.
There are no terms. NuttX is distributed under the Apache 2.0 license.
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any
> binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving
> Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or
> employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their
> decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval
> decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise
> participate in discussions.
I'm not the reviewer here.
> This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being
> cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or
> maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a
> developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not
> face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely
> exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves
> subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
Again I'm not the reviewer here.
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries
> as possible and appropriate (`core` for most targets, `alloc` for targets
> that can support dynamic memory allocation, `std` for targets with an
> operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but
> may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as
> appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or
> challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to
> avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3
> target not implementing those portions.
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how
> to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target
> supports running binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the
> documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target,
> using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Building is described in platform support doc, but libstd is not supported now, I'll implement it later.
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or
> other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular,
> do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a
> block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or
> notifications (via any medium, including via ``@`)` to a PR author or others
> involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into
> such messages.
Understood.
> Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to
> an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within
> reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not
> generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested
> such notifications.
Understood.
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2
> or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without
> approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3
> target.
I believe I didn't break any other target.
> In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets,
> such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid
> introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the
> target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as
> appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
I think there are no such problems in this PR.
> Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of
> rustc's supported backends from any host target. (Having support in a fork
> of the backend is not sufficient, it must be upstream.)
Yes, it use standard RISCV or ARM backend to generate assembly.
