`#[naked]`: report incompatible attributes
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
this is a re-implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93809 by ``@bstrie`` which was closed 2 years ago due to inactivity.
This PR takes some of the final comments into account, specifically providing a little more context in error messages, and using an allow list to determine which attributes are compatible with `#[naked]`.
Notable attributes that are incompatible with `#[naked]` are:
* `#[inline]`
* `#[track_caller]`
* ~~`#[target_feature]`~~ (this is now allowed, see PR discussion)
* `#[test]`, `#[ignore]`, `#[should_panic]`
These attributes just directly conflict with what `#[naked]` should do.
Naked functions are still important for systems programming, embedded, and operating systems, so I'd like to move them forward.
improve error message when `global_asm!` uses `asm!` options
specifically, what was
error: expected one of `)`, `att_syntax`, or `raw`, found `preserves_flags`
--> $DIR/bad-options.rs:45:25
|
LL | global_asm!("", options(preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected one of `)`, `att_syntax`, or `raw`
is now
error: the `preserves_flags` option cannot be used with `global_asm!`
--> $DIR/bad-options.rs:45:25
|
LL | global_asm!("", options(preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the `preserves_flags` option is not meaningful for global-scoped inline assembly
mirroring the phrasing of the [reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/inline-assembly.html#options).
This is also a bit of a refactor for a future `naked_asm!` macro (for use in `#[naked]` functions). Currently this sort of error can come up when switching from inline to global asm, or when a user just isn't that experienced with assembly. With `naked_asm!` added to the mix hitting this error is more likely.
- merge error codes
- use attribute name that is incompatible in error message
- add test for conditional incompatible attribute
- add `linkage` to the allowlist
Forbid borrows and unsized types from being used as the type of a const generic under `adt_const_params`
Fixes#112219Fixes#112124Fixes#112125
### Motivation
Currently the `adt_const_params` feature allows writing `Foo<const N: [u8]>` this is entirely useless as it is not possible to write an expression which evaluates to a type that is not `Sized`. In order to actually use unsized types in const generics they are typically written as `const N: &[u8]` which *is* possible to provide a value of.
Unfortunately allowing the types of const parameters to contain references is non trivial (#120961) as it introduces a number of difficult questions about how equality of references in the type system should behave. References in the types of const generics is largely only useful for using unsized types in const generics.
This PR introduces a new feature gate `unsized_const_parameters` and moves support for `const N: [u8]` and `const N: &...` from `adt_const_params` into it. The goal here hopefully is to experiment with allowing `const N: [u8]` to work without references and then eventually completely forbid references in const generics.
Splitting this out into a new feature gate means that stabilization of `adt_const_params` does not have to resolve#120961 which is the only remaining "big" blocker for the feature. Remaining issues after this are a few ICEs and naming bikeshed for `ConstParamTy`.
### Implementation
The implementation is slightly subtle here as we would like to ensure that a stabilization of `adt_const_params` is forwards compatible with any outcome of `unsized_const_parameters`. This is inherently tricky as we do not support unstable trait implementations and we determine whether a type is valid as the type of a const parameter via a trait bound.
There are a few constraints here:
- We would like to *allow for the possibility* of adding a `Sized` supertrait to `ConstParamTy` in the event that we wind up opting to not support unsized types and instead requiring people to write the 'sized version', e.g. `const N: [u8; M]` instead of `const N: [u8]`.
- Crates should be able to enable `unsized_const_parameters` and write trait implementations of `ConstParamTy` for `!Sized` types without downstream crates that only enable `adt_const_params` being able to observe this (required for std to be able to `impl<T> ConstParamTy for [T]`
Ultimately the way this is accomplished is via having two traits (sad), `ConstParamTy` and `UnsizedConstParamTy`. Depending on whether `unsized_const_parameters` is enabled or not we change which trait is used to check whether a type is allowed to be a const parameter.
Long term (when stabilizing `UnsizedConstParamTy`) it should be possible to completely merge these traits (and derive macros), only having a single `trait ConstParamTy` and `macro ConstParamTy`.
Under `adt_const_params` it is now illegal to directly refer to `ConstParamTy` it is only used as an internal impl detail by `derive(ConstParamTy)` and checking const parameters are well formed. This is necessary in order to ensure forwards compatibility with all possible future directions for `feature(unsized_const_parameters)`.
Generally the intuition here should be that `ConstParamTy` is the stable trait that everything uses, and `UnsizedConstParamTy` is that plus unstable implementations (well, I suppose `ConstParamTy` isn't stable yet :P).
Reject SmartPointer constructions not serving the purpose
Tracking issue: #123430
With this PR we will reject a row of malformed `SmartPointer` implementor candidates.
cc `@Darksonn` `@davidtwco` for context.
Migrate some rustc_builtin_macros to SessionDiagnostic
<!--
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>
-->
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100717.
pick up abandoned pr: #101935
`@rustbot` label +A-translation
This makes their intent and expected location clearer. We see some
examples where these comments were not clearly separate from `use`
declarations, which made it hard to understand what the comment is
describing.
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
When `derive`ing, account for HRTB on `BareFn` fields
When given
```rust
trait SomeTrait {
type SomeType<'a>;
}
#[derive(Clone)]
struct Foo<T: SomeTrait> {
x: for<'a> fn(T::SomeType<'a>)
}
```
expand to
```rust
impl<T: ::core::clone::Clone + SomeTrait> ::core::clone::Clone for Foo<T>
where for<'a> T::SomeType<'a>: ::core::clone::Clone {
#[inline]
fn clone(&self) -> Foo<T> {
Foo { x: ::core::clone::Clone::clone(&self.x) }
}
}
```
instead of the previous invalid
```
impl<T: ::core::clone::Clone + SomeTrait> ::core::clone::Clone for Foo<T>
where T::SomeType<'a>: ::core::clone::Clone {
#[inline]
fn clone(&self) -> Foo<T> {
Foo { x: ::core::clone::Clone::clone(&self.x) }
}
}
```
Fix#122622.
<!--
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>
-->
Currently we have an awkward mix of fallible and infallible functions:
```
new_parser_from_source_str
maybe_new_parser_from_source_str
new_parser_from_file
(maybe_new_parser_from_file) // missing
(new_parser_from_source_file) // missing
maybe_new_parser_from_source_file
source_str_to_stream
maybe_source_file_to_stream
```
We could add the two missing functions, but instead this commit removes
of all the infallible ones and renames the fallible ones leaving us with
these which are all fallible:
```
new_parser_from_source_str
new_parser_from_file
new_parser_from_source_file
source_str_to_stream
source_file_to_stream
```
This requires making `unwrap_or_emit_fatal` public so callers of
formerly infallible functions can still work.
This does make some of the call sites slightly more verbose, but I think
it's worth it for the simpler API. Also, there are two `catch_unwind`
calls and one `catch_fatal_errors` call in this diff that become
removable thanks this change. (I will do that in a follow-up PR.)
Expand `for_loops_over_fallibles` lint to lint on fallibles behind references.
Extends the scope of the (warn-by-default) lint `for_loops_over_fallibles` from just `for _ in x` where `x: Option<_>/Result<_, _>` to also cover `x: &(mut) Option<_>/Result<_>`
```rs
fn main() {
// Current lints
for _ in Some(42) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// New lints
for _ in &Some(42) {}
for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// Should not lint
for _ in Some(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter_mut() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter_mut() {}
}
```
<details><summary><code>cargo build</code> diff</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/old.out b/new.out
index 84215aa..ca195a7 100644
--- a/old.out
+++ b/new.out
`@@` -1,33 +1,93 `@@`
warning: for loop over an `Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:3:14
|
3 | for _ in Some(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(for_loops_over_fallibles)]` on by default
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
3 | while let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
3 | if let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
warning: for loop over a `Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:4:14
|
4 | for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
4 | while let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
4 | if let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
-warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 2 warnings
- Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.04s
+warning: for loop over a `&Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:7:14
+ |
+7 | for _ in &Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+7 | while let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+7 | if let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:8:14
+ |
+8 | for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+8 | while let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+8 | if let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:9:14
+ |
+9 | for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+9 | while let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+9 | if let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:10:14
+ |
+10 | for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+10 | while let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+10 | if let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 6 warnings
+ Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.02s
```
</details>
-----
Question:
* ~~Currently, the article `an` is used for `&Option`, and `&mut Option` in the lint diagnostic, since that's what `Option` uses. Is this okay or should it be changed? (likewise, `a` is used for `&Result` and `&mut Result`)~~ The article `a` is used for `&Option`, `&mut Option`, `&Result`, `&mut Result` and (as before) `Result`. Only `Option` uses `an` (as before).
`@rustbot` label +A-lint
This has no noticeable effect, but it makes these cases follow the
guidelines in the comments on `Spacing`, which say that `Joint` should
be used "for each token that (a) should be pretty-printed without a
space after it, and (b) is followed by a punctuation token".
These two tokens are both followed by a comma, which is a punctuation
token.
