Don't allow test revisions that conflict with built in cfgs
Fixes#128964
Sorry `@heysujal` I started working on this about 1 minute before your comment by complete coincidence 😅
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #130991 (Vectorized SliceContains)
- #131928 (rustdoc: Document `markdown` module.)
- #131955 (Set `signext` or `zeroext` for integer arguments on RISC-V and LoongArch64)
- #131979 (Minor tweaks to `compare_impl_item.rs`)
- #132036 (Add a test case for #131164)
- #132039 (Specialize `read_exact` and `read_buf_exact` for `VecDeque`)
- #132060 ("innermost", "outermost", "leftmost", and "rightmost" don't need hyphens)
- #132065 (Clarify documentation of `ptr::dangling()` function)
- #132066 (Fix a typo in documentation of `pointer::sub_ptr()`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
"innermost", "outermost", "leftmost", and "rightmost" don't need hyphens
These are all standard dictionary words and don't require hyphenation.
-----
Encountered an instance of this in error messages and it bugged me, so I
figured I'd fix it across the entire codebase.
rustdoc: Document `markdown` module.
Rustdoc markdown handling is currently split between:
- html::markdown, which contains all the meaty login
- markdown, which is only used for when rustdoc renders a standalone markdown file
Adds module-level doc-comment to markdown, and rename the function so it's clear that it's doing IO (instead of just rendering to a string).
CI: rfl: use rust-next temporary commit
Commit c95bbb59a9b22f9b838b15d28319185c1c884329 within rust-next contains some changes required to be compatible with upcoming arbitraty self types work. Roll RFL CI forward to the latest rust-next to include that work.
Related:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130225https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874
r? ``@ojeda``
try-job: x86_64-rust-for-linux
Add wasm32v1-none target (compiler-team/#791)
This is a preliminary implementation of the MCP discussed in [compiler-team#791](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/791). It's not especially "major" but you know, process! Anyway it adds a new wasm32v1-none target which just pins down a set of wasm features. I think this is close to the consensus that emerged when discussing it on Zulip so I figured I'd sketch to see how hard it is. Turns out not very.
Compiletest: Custom differ
This adds support for a custom differ for compiletests. It’s purely visual and helps produce cleaner output when UI tests fail.
I’m using an environment variable for now since it’s experimental and I don’t want to drill the cli arguments all the way down. Also did a bit of general cleanup while I was at it.
This is how it looks [with debug info silenced](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131182) (#131182)
`COMPILETEST_DIFF_TOOL="/usr/bin/env difft --color always --background light --display side-by-side" ./x test tests/ui/parser`
Refactor change detection for rustdoc and download-rustc
This pull request refactors the change detection logic in the build process by consolidating redundant code into a new helper method. The key changes include the removal of duplicate logic for checking changes in directories and the addition of a new method to handle this functionality.
Refactoring and code simplification:
* [`src/bootstrap/src/core/build_steps/tool.rs`](diffhunk://#diff-dc86e288bcf7b3ca3f8c127d3568fbafc785704883bc7fc336bd185910aed5daL588-R593): Removed redundant change detection logic and replaced it with a call to the new `check_for_changes` method.
* [`src/bootstrap/src/core/config/config.rs`](diffhunk://#diff-5f5330cfcdb0a89b85ac3547b761c3a45c2534a85c4aaae8fea88c711a7a65b2R2837-R2872): Added a new method `check_for_changes` to centralize the logic for detecting changes in specified directories since a given commit.
* [`src/bootstrap/src/core/config/config.rs`](diffhunk://#diff-5f5330cfcdb0a89b85ac3547b761c3a45c2534a85c4aaae8fea88c711a7a65b2L2728-R2740): Updated the existing change detection code to use the new `check_for_changes` method.
Cleanup:
* [`src/bootstrap/src/core/build_steps/tool.rs`](diffhunk://#diff-dc86e288bcf7b3ca3f8c127d3568fbafc785704883bc7fc336bd185910aed5daL13-R13): Removed the unused import `git` from the helpers module.
r? ``@AlbertLarsan68``
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125205 (Fixup Windows verbatim paths when used with the `include!` macro)
- #131049 (Validate args are correct for `UnevaluatedConst`, `ExistentialTraitRef`/`ExistentialProjection`)
- #131549 (Add a note for `?` on a `impl Future<Output = Result<..>>` in sync function)
- #131731 (add `TestFloatParse` to `tools.rs` for bootstrap)
- #131732 (Add doc(plugins), doc(passes), etc. to INVALID_DOC_ATTRIBUTES)
- #132006 (don't stage-off to previous compiler when CI rustc is available)
- #132022 (Move `cmp_in_dominator_order` out of graph dominator computation)
- #132033 (compiletest: Make `line_directive` return a `DirectiveLine`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
compiletest: Make `line_directive` return a `DirectiveLine`
This reduces the need to juggle raw tuples, and opens up the possibility of moving more parts of directive parsing into `line_directive`.
In order to make the main change possible, this PR also (partly) separates the debugger-command parsing from the main directive parser. That cleanup removes support for `[rev]` in debugger commands, which is not used by any tests.
add `TestFloatParse` to `tools.rs` for bootstrap
add TestFloatParse to tools for bootstrap, I am not sure this is what the issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128012 discussion wants.
try-job: aarch64-apple
terminology: #[feature] *enables* a feature (instead of "declaring" or "activating" it)
Mostly, we currently call a feature that has a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` attribute in the current crate a "declared" feature. I think that is confusing as it does not align with what "declaring" usually means. Furthermore, we *also* refer to `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]` as *declaring* a feature (e.g. in [these diagnostics](f25e5abea2/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl (L297-L301))), which aligns better with what "declaring" usually means. To make things worse, the functions `tcx.features().active(...)` and `tcx.features().declared(...)` both exist and they are doing almost the same thing (testing whether a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` exists) except that `active` would ICE if the feature is not an unstable lang feature. On top of this, the callback when a feature is activated/declared is called `set_enabled`, and many comments also talk about "enabling" a feature.
So really, our terminology is just a mess.
I would suggest we use "declaring a feature" for saying that something is/was guarded by a feature (e.g. `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]`), and "enabling a feature" for `#[feature(name)]`. This PR implements that.
Move const trait tests from `ui/rfcs/rfc-2632-const-trait-impl` to `ui/traits/const-traits`
I found the old test directory to be somewhat long to name, and I don't think it's necessary to put an experimental implementation's tests under an rfc which is closed.
r? fee1-dead
Breaking this out of #131985 so that PR doesn't touch 300 files.
shave 150ms off bootstrap
This starts `git` commands inside `GitInfo`and the submodule updates in parallel. Git should already perform internal locking in cases where it needs to serialize a modification.
```
OLD
Benchmark #1: ./x check core
Time (mean ± σ): 608.7 ms ± 4.4 ms [User: 368.3 ms, System: 455.1 ms]
Range (min … max): 602.3 ms … 618.8 ms 10 runs
NEW
Benchmark #1: ./x check core
Time (mean ± σ): 462.8 ms ± 2.6 ms [User: 350.2 ms, System: 485.1 ms]
Range (min … max): 457.5 ms … 465.6 ms 10 runs
```
This should help with the rust-analyzer setup which issues many individual `./x check` calls. There's more that could be done but these were the lowest-hanging fruits that I saw.
rust_for_linux: -Zregparm=<N> commandline flag for X86 (#116972)
Command line flag `-Zregparm=<N>` for X86 (32-bit) for rust-for-linux: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116972
Implemented in the similar way as fastcall/vectorcall support (args are marked InReg if fit).
make unsupported_calling_conventions a hard error
This has been a future-compat lint (not shown in dependencies) since Rust 1.55, released 3 years ago. Hopefully that was enough time so this can be made a hard error now. Given that long timeframe, I think it's justified to skip the "show in dependencies" stage. There were [not many crates hitting this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86231#issuecomment-866300943) even when the lint was originally added.
This should get cratered, and I assume then it needs a t-compiler FCP. (t-compiler because this looks entirely like an implementation oversight -- for the vast majority of ABIs, we already have a hard error, but some were initially missed, and we are finally fixing that.)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87678
(ci) Update macOS Xcode to 15
This updates the macOS builders to Xcode 15. The aarch64 images will be removing Xcode 14 and 16 very soon (https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/10703), so we will need to make the switch to continue operating. The linked issue also documents GitHub's new policy for how they will be updating Xcode in the future. Also worth being aware of is the future plans for x86 runners documented in https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/9255 and https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/10686, which will impact our future upgrade behaviors.
I decided to also update the Xcode in the x86_64 runners, even though they are not being removed. It felt better to me to have all macOS runners on the same (major) version of Xcode. However, note that the x86_64 runners do not have the latest version of 15 (15.4), so I left them at 15.2 (which is currently the default Xcode of the runner).
Xcode 15 was previously causing problems (see #121058) which seem to be resolved now. `@bjorn3` fixed the `invalid r_symbolnum` issue with cranelift. The issue with clang failing to link seems to be fixed, possibly by the update of the pre-built LLVM from 14 to llvm 15 in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124850, or an update in our source version of LLVM. I have run some try builds and at least LLVM seems to build (I did not run any tests).
Closes#121058
feat: better completions for extern blcoks
This PR refactors `add_keywords` (making it much clearer!) and enhances completion for `extern` blocks.
It is recommended to reviewing the changes in order of the commits:
- The first commit (f3c4dde0a4917a2bac98605cc045eecfb4d69872) doesn’t change any logic but refactors parts of the `add_keywords` function and adds detailed comments.
- The second commit (5dcc1ab649bf8a49cadf006d620871b12f093a2f) improves completion for `extern` kw and extern blocks.
