Rename `BitSet` to `DenseBitSet`
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum` as you requested this in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134438#discussion_r1890659739 after such a confusion.
This PR renames `BitSet` to `DenseBitSet` to make it less obvious as the go-to solution for bitmap needs, as well as make its representation (and positives/negatives) clearer. It also expands the comments there to hopefully make it clearer when it's not a good fit, with some alternative bitsets types.
(This migrates the subtrees cg_gcc and clippy to use the new name in separate commits, for easier review by their respective owners, but they can obvs be squashed)
add `-Zmin-function-alignment`
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82232
This PR adds the `-Zmin-function-alignment=<align>` flag, that specifies a minimum alignment for all* functions.
### Motivation
This feature is requested by RfL [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128830):
> i.e. the equivalents of `-fmin-function-alignment` ([GCC](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-fmin-function-alignment_003dn), Clang does not support it) / `-falign-functions` ([GCC](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-falign-functions), [Clang](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangCommandLineReference.html#cmdoption-clang1-falign-functions)).
>
> For the Linux kernel, the behavior wanted is that of GCC's `-fmin-function-alignment` and Clang's `-falign-functions`, i.e. align all functions, including cold functions.
>
> There is [`feature(fn_align)`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82232), but we need to do it globally.
### Behavior
The `fn_align` feature does not have an RFC. It was decided at the time that it would not be necessary, but maybe we feel differently about that now? In any case, here are the semantics of this flag:
- `-Zmin-function-alignment=<align>` specifies the minimum alignment of all* functions
- the `#[repr(align(<align>))]` attribute can be used to override the function alignment on a per-function basis: when `-Zmin-function-alignment` is specified, the attribute's value is only used when it is higher than the value passed to `-Zmin-function-alignment`.
- the target may decide to use a higher value (e.g. on x86_64 the minimum that LLVM generates is 16)
- The highest supported alignment in rust is `2^29`: I checked a bunch of targets, and they all emit the `.p2align 29` directive for targets that align functions at all (some GPU stuff does not have function alignment).
*: Only with `build-std` would the minimum alignment also be applied to `std` functions.
---
cc `@ojeda`
r? `@workingjubilee` you were active on the tracking issue
bump `rustc-perf` submodule
This updates the `rustc-perf` submodule to pull in the recent changes, in particular the error handling in https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-perf/pull/2021 fixing the error we saw in a recent run.
I think I did this correctly, submodules are so annoying.
r? kobzol
(opening as draft to do a perf run and check that nothing has changed indeed)
re-add a warning for old master branch, but with much simpler logic
instead of calling into git or checking the modification time of files, simply print the warning if there is a very large number of "modified" files.
also make the wording much softer, so false positives are less alarming.
(warning was removed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134935)
`-Zrandomize-layout` harder. `Foo<T> != Foo<U>`
Tracking issue: #106764
Previously randomize-layout only used a deterministic shuffle based on the seed stored in an Adt's ReprOptions, meaning that `Foo<T>` and `Foo<U>` were shuffled by the same seed. This change adds a similar seed to each calculated LayoutData so that a struct can be randomized both based on the layout of its fields and its per-type seed.
Primitives start with simple seed derived from some of their properties. Though some types can no longer be distinguished at that point, e.g. usize and u64 will still be treated the same.
There is a difference between the `image` (the Dockerfile), the `name` of the job (which determines also its properties) and the `full_name`, which includes the `auto/try/pr` prefix.
instead of calling into git or checking the modification time of files,
simply print the warning if there is a very large number of
"modified" files.
also make the wording much softer, so false positives are less alarming.
Rollup of 3 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #134898 (Make it easier to run CI jobs locally)
- #135195 (Make `lit_to_mir_constant` and `lit_to_const` infallible)
- #135261 (Account for identity substituted items in symbol mangling)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Make it easier to run CI jobs locally
This PR extends the Python CI script to perform a poor man's CI-like execution of a given CI job locally. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.
r? `@jieyouxu`
bootstrap: Add more comments to some of the test steps
Some of the test steps have names that don't clearly indicate what they actually do.
While there is ongoing experimental work to actually rename the steps (e.g. #135071), that's dependent on figuring out what the new names should actually be. In the meantime, we can still improve things by adding comments to help describe the steps, which will remain useful even after any renaming.
Include rustc and rustdoc book in replace-version-placeholder
This PR includes the *(stable)* rustc and rustdoc books which might contain `CURRENT_RUSTC_VERSION` that should be replaced when branching beta. Include them so they are not forgotten.
I didn't include any other folder or books as they don't strike me as relevant for it and might be problematic in the future if some of the submodules are turned into subtree, because we have places where we wouldn't want to replace them.
cf. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135163#issuecomment-2574694931
cc `@pietroalbini`
Add new `{x86_64,i686}-win7-windows-gnu` targets
These are in symmetry with `{x86_64,i686}-win7-windows-msvc`.
> ## Tier 3 target policy
>
> At this tier, the Rust project provides no official support for a target, so we
> place minimal requirements on the introduction of targets.
>
> A proposed new tier 3 target must be reviewed and approved by a member of the
> compiler team based on these requirements. The reviewer may choose to gauge
> broader compiler team consensus via a [Major Change Proposal (MCP)][https://forge.rust-lang.org/compiler/mcp.html].
>
> A proposed target or target-specific patch that substantially changes code
> shared with other targets (not just target-specific code) must be reviewed and
> approved by the appropriate team for that shared code before acceptance.
>
> - 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.)
This is me, `@tbu-` on github.
> - 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.
> - 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.
> - If possible, use only letters, numbers, dashes and underscores for the name.
> Periods (`.`) are known to cause issues in Cargo.
Consistent with `{x86_64,i686}-win7-windows-msvc`, see also #118150.
> - 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 target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
> - Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust
> license (`MIT OR Apache-2.0`).
> - 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.
> - 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.
> - "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.
AFAICT, it's the same legal situation as the tier 1 `{x86_64,i686}-pc-windows-gnu`.
> - 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.
> - 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.
Understood.
> - 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.
This target supports the whole libstd surface, since it's essentially reusing all of the x86_64-pc-windows-gnu target. Understood.
> - 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.
I tried to write some documentation on that.
> - 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.
> - 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.
> - 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.
> - 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.)
Understood.
> If a tier 3 target stops meeting these requirements, or the target maintainers
> no longer have interest or time, or the target shows no signs of activity and
> has not built for some time, or removing the target would improve the quality
> of the Rust codebase, we may post a PR to remove it; any such PR will be CCed
> to the target maintainers (and potentially other people who have previously
> worked on the target), to check potential interest in improving the situation.
>
Understood.
r? compiler-team
Revert #131365
This PR reverts #131365, following the revert we did on the beta branches for both 1.84 and 1.85.
While the PR passes CI successfully on master, as soon as we branch off beta it starts failing in the newly created beta branch. This caused the release team to revert it for both 1.84 and 1.85, and if nothing is done it would continue being reverted every cycle.
`@heiseish` (PR author) feel free to submit the PR again in the future: this revert doesn't represent the release team rejecting your change, but just a (hopefully temporary!) revert to ensure future beta branches can be created without reverting it each time.
When submitting the PR again, I recommend you test your changes by configuring `rust.channel` to both `nightly` and `beta` in your `config.toml`. You can see the latest failure [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135163#issuecomment-2576373995).
rustfmt: drop nightly-gating of the `--style-edition` flag registration
Follow-up to [Stabilize `style_edition = "2024"` in-tree #134929](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134929).
#134929 un-nightly-gated the *read* of `--style-edition`, but didn't also un-nightly-gate the *registration*/*declaration* of the `--style-edition` flag itself. Reading `--style-edition` on a non-nightly channel (e.g. beta) will thus panic because `--style-edition` is never declared.
This PR also un-nightly-gates the registration. Not sure how to write a regression test for this, because this *requires* the non-nightly / beta channel. Though existing tests do fail (albeit indirectly).
Checking if this fixes the panic against beta in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135197.
r? rustfmt
rustdoc: use stable paths as preferred canonical paths
This accomplishes something like 16a4ad7d7b, but with the `rustc_allowed_through_unstable_modules` attribute instead of the path length.
Fixes#131676
