We do not coerce `&mut &mut T -> *mut mut T`
Resolves#34117 by declaring it to be "working as intended" until someone RFCs it or whatever other lang proposal would be required. It seems a bit of a footgun, but perhaps there are strong reasons to allow it anyways. Seeing as how I often have to be mindful to not allow a pointer to coerce the wrong way in my FFI work, I am inclined to think not, but perhaps it's fine in some use-case and that's actually more common?
Enable `--check-cfg` by default in UI tests
This PR enables-by-default `--check-cfg` in UI tests, now that it has become stable.
To do so this PR does 2 main things:
- it introduce the `no-auto-check-cfg` directive to `compiletest`, to prevent any `--check-cfg` args (only to be used for `--check-cfg` tests)
- it updates the _remaining_[^1] UI tests by either:
- allowing the lint when neither expecting the lint nor giving the check-cfg args make sense
- give the appropriate check-cfg args
- or expect the lint, when it useful
[^1]: some preparation work was done in #123577#123702
I highly recommend reviewing this PR commit-by-commit.
r? `@jieyouxu`
Change `SIGPIPE` ui from `#[unix_sigpipe = "..."]` to `-Zon-broken-pipe=...`
In the stabilization [attempt](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120832) of `#[unix_sigpipe = "sig_dfl"]`, a concern was [raised ](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120832#issuecomment-2007394609) related to using a language attribute for the feature: Long term, we want `fn lang_start()` to be definable by any crate, not just libstd. Having a special language attribute in that case becomes awkward.
So as a first step towards the next stabilization attempt, this PR changes the `#[unix_sigpipe = "..."]` attribute to a compiler flag `-Zon-broken-pipe=...` to remove that concern, since now the language is not "contaminated" by this feature.
Another point was [also raised](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120832#issuecomment-1987023484), namely that the ui should not leak **how** it does things, but rather what the **end effect** is. The new flag uses the proposed naming. This is of course something that can be iterated on further before stabilization.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97889
Use a proof tree visitor to refine the `Obligation` for error reporting in new solver
With the magic of `ProofTreeVisitor`, we can close the gap that we have on `ObligationCause`s being not as descriptive in the new trait solver.
r? lcnr
Needs some work and obviously documentation.
Some hir cleanups
It seemed odd to not put `AnonConst` in the arena, compared with the other types that we did put into an arena. This way we can also give it a `Span` without growing a lot of other HIR data structures because of the extra field.
r? compiler
In the stabilization attempt of `#[unix_sigpipe = "sig_dfl"]`, a concern
was raised related to using a language attribute for the feature: Long
term, we want `fn lang_start()` to be definable by any crate, not just
libstd. Having a special language attribute in that case becomes
awkward.
So as a first step towards towards the next stabilization attempt, this
PR changes the `#[unix_sigpipe = "..."]` attribute to a compiler flag
`-Zon-broken-pipe=...` to remove that concern, since now the language
is not "contaminated" by this feature.
Another point was also raised, namely that the ui should not leak
**how** it does things, but rather what the **end effect** is. The new
flag uses the proposed naming. This is of course something that can be
iterated on further before stabilization.
Use an explicit x86-64 cpu in tests that are sensitive to it
There are a few tests that depend on some target features **not** being
enabled by default, and usually they are correct with the default x86-64
target CPU. However, in downstream builds we have modified the default
to fit our distros -- `x86-64-v2` in RHEL 9 and `x86-64-v3` in RHEL 10
-- and the latter especially trips tests that expect not to have AVX.
These cases are few enough that we can just set them back explicitly.
Add a lint against never type fallback affecting unsafe code
~~I'm not very happy with the code quality... `VecGraph` not allowing you to get predecessors is very annoying. This should work though, so there is that.~~ (ended up updating `VecGraph` to support getting predecessors)
~~First few commits are from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123934https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123980~~
Rewrite select (in the new solver) to use a `ProofTreeVisitor`
We can use a proof tree visitor rather than collecting and recomputing all the nested goals ourselves.
Based on #124415
There are a few tests that depend on some target features **not** being
enabled by default, and usually they are correct with the default x86-64
target CPU. However, in downstream builds we have modified the default
to fit our distros -- `x86-64-v2` in RHEL 9 and `x86-64-v3` in RHEL 10
-- and the latter especially trips tests that expect not to have AVX.
These cases are few enough that we can just set them back explicitly.
Cleanup: Replace item names referencing GitHub issues or error codes with something more meaningful
**lcnr** in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117164#pullrequestreview-1969935387:
> […] while I know that there's precendent to name things `Issue69420`, I really dislike this as it requires looking up the issue to figure out the purpose of such a variant. Actually referring to the underlying issue, e.g. `AliasMayNormToUncovered` or whatever and then linking to the issue in a doc comment feels a lot more desirable to me. We should ideally rename all the functions and enums which currently use issue numbers.
I've grepped through `compiler/` like crazy and think that I've found all instances of this pattern.
However, I haven't renamed `compute_2229_migrations_*`. Should I?
The first commit introduces an abhorrent and super long name for an item because naming is hard but also scary looking / unwelcoming names are good for things related to temporary-ish backcompat hacks. I'll let you discover it by yourself.
Contains a bit of drive-by cleanup and a diag migration bc that was the simplest option.
r? lcnr or compiler
Lazily normalize inside trait ref during orphan check & consider ty params in rigid alias types to be uncovered
Fixes#99554, fixesrust-lang/types-team#104.
Fixes#114061.
Supersedes #100555.
Tracking issue for the future compatibility lint: #124559.
r? lcnr
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #124519 (adapt a codegen test for llvm 19)
- #124524 (Add StaticForeignItem and use it on ForeignItemKind)
- #124540 (Give proof tree visitors the ability to instantiate nested goals directly)
- #124543 (codegen tests: Tolerate `range()` qualifications in enum tests)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add StaticForeignItem and use it on ForeignItemKind
This is in preparation for unsafe extern blocks that adds a safe variant for functions inside extern blocks.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@compiler-errors`
coverage: Replace boolean options with a `CoverageLevel` enum
After #123409, and some discussion at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79649#issuecomment-2042093553 and #124120, it became clear to me that we should have a unified concept of “coverage level”, instead of having several separate boolean flags that aren't actually independent.
This PR therefore introduces a `CoverageLevel` enum, to replace the existing boolean flags for `branch` and `mcdc`.
The `no-branch` value (for `-Zcoverage-options`) has been renamed to `block`, instructing the compiler to only instrument for block coverage, with no branch coverage or MD/DC instrumentation.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
cc `@ZhuUx` `@Lambdaris` `@RenjiSann`
Add a note to the ArbitraryExpressionInPattern error
The current "arbitrary expressions aren't allowed in patterns" error is confusing, as it fires for code where it *looks* like a pattern but the compiler still treats it as an expression. That this is due to the `:expr` fragment specifier forcing the expression-ness property on the code.
In the test suite, the "arbitrary expressions aren't allowed in patterns" error can only be found in combination with macro_rules macros that force expression-ness of their content, namely via `:expr` metavariables. I also can't come up with cases where there would be an expression instead of a pattern, so I think it's always coming from an `:expr`.
In order to make the error less confusing, this adds a note explaining the weird `:expr` fragment behaviour.
Fixes#99380
[Refactor] Rename `Lint` and `LintGroup`'s `is_loaded` to `is_externally_loaded`
The field being named `is_loaded` was very confusing. Turns out it's true for lints that are registered by external tools like Clippy (I had to look at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116412 to know what the variable meant). So I renamed `is_loaded` to `is_externally_loaded` and added some docs.
Mark unions non-const-propagatable in `KnownPanicsLint` without calling layout
Fixes#123710
The ICE occurs during the layout calculation of the union `InvalidTag` in #123710 because the following assert fails:5fe8b697e7/compiler/rustc_abi/src/layout.rs (L289-L292)
The layout calculation is invoked by `KnownPanicsLint` when it is trying to figure out which locals it can const prop. Since `KnownPanicsLint` is never actually going to const props unions thanks to PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121628 there's no point calling layout to check if it can. So in this fix I skip the call to layout and just mark the local non-const propagatable if it is a union.
Fix#124478 - offset_of! returns a temporary
This was due to the must_use() call. Adding HIR's `OffsetOf` to the must_use checking within the compiler avoids this issue while maintaining the lint output.
Fixes#124478. `@tgross35`
