Detect struct construction with private field in field with default
When trying to construct a struct that has a public field of a private type, suggest using `..` if that field has a default value.
```
error[E0603]: struct `Priv1` is private
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor-2.rs:19:39
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), field1: m::Priv1 {} };
| ------ ^^^^^ private struct
| |
| while setting this field
|
note: the struct `Priv1` is defined here
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor-2.rs:14:4
|
LL | struct Priv1 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: the type `Priv1` of field `field1` is private, but you can construct the default value defined for it in `S` using `..` in the struct initializer expression
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), .. };
| ~~
```
Fix typo with paren rustc_llvm/build.rs
The current parenthesis looks suspect: it means that OpenHarmony is always excluded whereas it looks like it was intended to only be excluded if the architecture was Arm.
Since Rust doesn't support the other architectures with OpenHarmony, there currently isn't a bug but this cleans up some suspicious code and avoids a potential future annoyance for someone trying to bring up a new triple.
r? `@Amanieu`
Use `eq_ignore_ascii_case` to avoid heap alloc in `detect_confuse_type`
A small optimization has been made, using `to_ascii_lowercase()` instead of `to_lowercase().to_string()`.
r? compiler
Replace unsafe `security_attributes` function with safe `inherit_handle` alternative
The `security_attributes` function is marked as safe despite taking a raw pointer which will later be used. Fortunately this function is only used internally and only in one place that has been basically the same for a decade now. However, we only ever set one bool so it's easy enough to replace with something that's actually safe.
In the future we might want to expose the ability for users to set security attributes. But that should be properly designed (and safe!).
Add regression test for `saturating_sub` bounds check issue
Add codegen test for issue where `valid_index.saturating_sub(X)` produced an extra bounds check.
This was fixed by the LLVM upgrade.
Closesrust-lang/rust#139759
Rehome 32 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/`
rust-lang/rust#143902 divided into smaller, easier to review chunks.
Part of rust-lang/rust#133895
Methodology:
1. Refer to the previously written `tests/ui/SUMMARY.md`
2. Find an appropriate category for the test, using the original issue thread and the test contents.
3. Add the issue URL at the bottom (not at the top, as that would mess up stderr line numbers)
4. Rename the tests to make their purpose clearer
Inspired by the methodology that `@Kivooeo` was using.
r? `@jieyouxu`
When trying to construct a struct that has a public field of a private type, suggest using `..` if that field has a default value.
```
error[E0603]: struct `Priv1` is private
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor.rs:25:39
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), field1: m::Priv1 {} };
| ------ ^^^^^ private struct
| |
| while setting this field
|
note: the struct `Priv1` is defined here
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor.rs:14:4
|
LL | struct Priv1 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: the field `field1` you're trying to set has a default value, you can use `..` to use it
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), .. };
| ~~
```
Start reporting future breakage for `ILL_FORMED_ATTRIBUTE_INPUT` in dependencies
This has been a warn lint since early 2019 and a deny-by-default lint since late 2019.
We're currently transitioning some of the cases where this lint is being produced to a hard error (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143607https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143808 and more)
So let's report this lint in all dependencies for the remaining attributes
r? `@traviscross`
`@rustbot` labels +I-lang-nominated +T-lang -T-compiler
cc `@jdonszelmann`
(Separate question: Why does the "Future incompatibility report" only trigger if `report_in_deps` is true, even if the future incompatibility happens in the same crate, is this correct?)
This also needs a crater run, but I don't have permissions to trigger this
`suggest_borrow_generic_arg`: use the correct generic args
The suggestion now gets calls' generic arguments from the callee's type to handle cases where the callee isn't an identifier expression. Fixesrust-lang/rust#145164.
Fix an unstable feature comment that wasn't a doc comment
Every other feature in the list uses a doc comment; fix one that used a regular comment to use a doc comment.
`{BTree,Hash}Map`: add "`Entry` API" section heading
I wanted to link to an introduction of the `Entry` API to the help message of `clippy::map_entry` (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/11598 for motivation), but I found the documentation on the `Entry` enum itself a bit short. On the other hand, `{BTree,Hash}Map` both have sections in their docs introducing the whole API and giving usage examples, and so I would like to link to that instead. For that, I introduce the "`Entry` API" section heading to both of them.
Do let me know whether you think this is the right approach.
Override custom Cargo `build-dir` in bootstrap
The context for this issue is in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/145107. The issue is that if people configure `build-dir`, it would break bootstrap. For now, we just hard-code it to our self-contained target directories inside the build directory.
Tested by putting the following:
```toml
[build]
build-dir = "/tmp/foo"
[unstable]
build-dir = true
```
into `<rustc-checkout>/.cargo/config.toml`. `x build` works with this PR, doesn't work without this PR.
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/145107
some `derive_more` refactors
some clauses can be merged together without requiring an attribute for each trait derived.
also manually impl `Eq` because the `derive_where` generated code is too much for my comfort (cc https://github.com/ModProg/derive-where/pull/128)
improve "Documentation problem" issue template.
rustdoc has its own issue template now, mention that.
swap the order of the last two sentances so it reads more like a typical if/else chain (base case listed last).
[win][arm64ec] Add `/machine:arm64ec` when linking LLVM as Arm64EC
When the MSVC linker sees an Arm64EC object file, it needs to know if it's linking the final executable as Arm64EC or Arm64X.
This change adds the `/machine:arm64ec` flag to the linker when building LLVM as Arm64EC to avoid that ambiguity (and resulting linker error).
[win][arm64ec] Partial fix for raw-dylib-link-ordinal on Arm64EC
These are the test fixes required to get `raw-dylib-link-ordinal` working on Arm64EC.
For the test to completely pass, we also need an updated `ar_archive_writer` with <https://github.com/rust-lang/ar_archive_writer/pull/24> merged in.
Improve error output when a command fails in bootstrap
I fixed this because it was being an issue for debugging CI failures.
We try to print as much information as possible, just with a slightly less verbose command description in non-verbose mode. The code is now more unified and hopefully simpler to understand.
I also fixed the `format_short_cmd` logic, it was a bit weird after some recent refactors.
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/145002
r? `````````@jieyouxu`````````
CC `````````@Shourya742`````````
`tests/ui/issues/`: The Issues Strike Back [4/N]
Some `tests/ui/issues/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/issues/`. Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133895.
r? ````````@jieyouxu````````
Simplify polonius location-sensitive analysis
This PR reworks the location-sensitive analysis into what we think is a worthwhile subset of the datalog analysis. A sort of polonius alpha analysis that handles NLL problem case 3 and more, but is still using the faster "reachability as an approximation of liveness", as well as the same loans-in-scope computation as NLLs -- and thus doesn't handle full flow-sensitivity like the datalog implementation.
In the last few months, we've identified this subset as being actionable:
- we believe we can make a stabilizable version of this analysis
- it is an improvement over the status quo
- it can also be modeled in a-mir-formality, or some other formalism, for assurances about soundness, and I believe ````````@nikomatsakis```````` is interested in looking into this during H2.
- and we've identified the areas of work we wish to explore later to gradually expand the supported cases: the differences between reachability and liveness, support of kills, and considerations of time-traveling, for example.
The approach in this PR is to try less to have the graph only represent live paths, by checking whether we reach a live region during traversal and recording the loan as live there, instead of equating traversal with liveness like today because it has subtleties with the typeck edges in statements (that could forward loans to the successor point without ensuring their liveness). We can then also simplify these typeck stmt edges. And we also can simplify traversal by removing looking at kills, because that's enough to handle a bunch of NLL problem 3 cases -- and we can gradually support them more and more in traversal in the future, to reduce the approximation of liveness.
There's still some in-progress pieces of work w/r/t opaque types that I'm expecting [lcnr's opaque types rework](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139587), and [amanda's SCCs rework](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130227) to handle. That didn't seem to show up in tests until I rebased today (and shows lack of test coverage once again) when https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/142255 introduced a couple of test failures with the new captures rules from edition 2024. It's not unexpected since we know more work is needed with member constraints (and we're not even using SCCs in this prototype yet)
I'll look into these anyways, both for future work, and checking how these other 2 PRs would change things.
---
I'm not sure the following means a lot until we have some formalism in-place, but:
- I've changed the polonius compare-mode to use this analysis: the tests pass with it, except 2 cases with minor diagnostics differences, and the 2 edition 2024 opaque types one I mentioned above and need to investigate
- things that are expected to work still do work: it bootstraps, can run our rustc-perf benchmarks (and the results are not even that bad), and a crater run didn't find any regressions (forgetting that crater currently fails to test around a quarter of all crates 👼)
- I've added tests with improvements, like the NLL problem case 3 and others, as well as some that behave the same as NLLs today and are thus worse than the datalog implementation
r? ````````@jackh726````````
(no rush I know you're deep in phd work and "implmentating" the new trait solver for r-a :p <3)
This also fixesrust-lang/rust#135646, a diagnostics ICE from the previous implementation.
unstable-book: Add stubs for environment variables; document some of the important ones
This uses a very hacky regex that will probably miss some variables. But having some docs seems better than none at all.
In particular, this documents the following env vars explicitly (cc ````````@madsmtm```````` ````````@flba-eb```````` - do the docs for SDKROOT and QNX_TARGET look right?):
- COLORTERM
- QNX_TARGET
- SDKROOT
- TERM
and generates stubs for the following env vars:
- RUST_BACKTRACE
- RUSTC_BLESS
- RUSTC_BREAK_ON_ICE
- RUSTC_CTFE_BACKTRACE
- RUSTC_FORCE_RUSTC_VERSION
- RUSTC_GRAPHVIZ_FONT
- RUSTC_ICE
- RUSTC_LOG
- RUSTC_RETRY_LINKER_ON_SEGFAULT
- RUSTC_TRANSLATION_NO_DEBUG_ASSERT
- RUST_DEP_GRAPH_FILTER
- RUST_DEP_GRAPH
- RUST_FORBID_DEP_GRAPH_EDGE
- RUST_MIN_STACK
- RUST_TARGET_PATH
- UNSTABLE_RUSTDOC_TEST_LINE
- UNSTABLE_RUSTDOC_TEST_PATH
rendered: 
