Implement LLVM x86 bmi intrinsics
This implements the intrinsics for both the bmi1 and bmi2 ISA extensions. All of these intrinsics live inside the same namespace as far as LLVM is concerned, which is why it is arguably better to bundle the implementations of these two extensions.
Uplift next trait solver to `rustc_next_trait_solver`
🎉
There's so many FIXMEs! Sorry! Ideally this merges with the FIXMEs and we track and squash them over the near future.
Also, this still doesn't build on anything other than rustc. I still need to fix `feature = "nightly"` in `rustc_type_ir`, and remove and fix all the nightly feature usage in the new trait solver (notably: let-chains).
Also, sorry `@lcnr` I know you asked for me to separate the commit where we `mv rustc_trait_selection/solve/... rustc_next_trait_solver/solve/...`, but I had already done all the work by that point. Luckily, `git` understands the file moves so it should still be relatively reviewable.
If this is still very difficult to review, then I can do some rebasing magic to try to separate this out. Please let me know!
r? lcnr
Replace all `&DiagCtxt` with a `DiagCtxtHandle<'_>` wrapper type
r? `@davidtwco`
This paves the way for tracking more state (e.g. error tainting) in the diagnostic context handle
Basically I will add a field to the `DiagCtxtHandle` that refers back to the `InferCtxt`'s (and others) `Option<ErrorHandled>`, allowing us to immediately taint these contexts when emitting an error and not needing manual tainting anymore (which is easy to forget and we don't do in general anyway)
More thorough status-quo tests for `#[coverage(..)]`
In light of the stabilization push at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84605#issuecomment-2166514660, I have written some tests to more thoroughly capture the current behaviour of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute.
These tests aim to capture the *current* behaviour, which is not necessarily the desired behaviour. For example, some of the error message are not great, some things that perhaps ought to cause an error do not, and recursive coverage attributes have not been implemented yet.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
coverage: Add debugging flag `-Zcoverage-options=no-mir-spans`
When set, this flag skips the code that normally extracts coverage spans from MIR statements and terminators. That sometimes makes it easier to debug branch coverage and MC/DC coverage instrumentation, because the coverage output is less noisy.
For internal debugging only. If future code changes would make it hard to keep supporting this flag, it should be removed at that time.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
Migrate `error-found-staticlib-instead-crate`, `output-filename-conflicts-with-directory`, `output-filename-overwrites-input`, `native-link-modifier-verbatim-rustc` and `native-link-verbatim-linker` `run-make` tests to `rmake.rs` format
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
Rework `feature(precise_capturing)` to represent `use<...>` as a syntactical bound
Reworks `precise_capturing` for a recent lang-team consensus.
Specifically:
> The conclusion of the team is that we'll make use<..> a bound. That is, we'll support impl use<..> + Trait, impl Trait + use<..>, etc.
> For now, we will support at most one such bound in a list of bounds, and semantically we'll only support these bounds in the item bounds of RPIT-like impl Trait opaque types (i.e., in the places discussed in the RFC).
Lang decision in favor of this approach:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125836#issuecomment-2151351849
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123432
Return opaque type from PanicInfo::message()
This changes the return type of the (unstable) PanicInfo::message() method to an opaque type (that implements Display). This allows for a bit more flexibility in the future.
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66745
Migrate `extern-flag-fun`, `incremental-debugger-visualiser` and `incremental-session-fail` `run-make` tests to `rmake.rs`
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
try-job: arm-android
try-job: armhf-gnu
try-job: test-various
try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: dist-i686-mingw
Migrate `link-arg`, `link-dedup` and `issue-26092` `run-make` tests to `rmake` format
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
All of these tests check if rustc's output contains (or does not) contain certain strings. Does that mean these could be better suited to becoming UI/codegen tests?
try-job: x86_64-msvc
