I was wrong on #19127, I thought hir-def resolver is enough for them, but it turns out not because of paths like `<Enum>::Variant` and `Type::AssocThatIsEnum::Variant`.
Overhaul `rustc_middle::limits`
In particular, to make `pattern_complexity` work more like other limits, which then enables some other simplifications.
r? ``@Nadrieril``
Start removing `rustc_middle::hir::map::Map`
`rustc_middle::hir::map::Map` is now just a low-value wrapper around `TyCtxt`. This PR starts removing it.
r? `@cjgillot`
First of all, note that `Map` has three different relevant meanings.
- The `intravisit::Map` trait.
- The `map::Map` struct.
- The `NestedFilter::Map` associated type.
The `intravisit::Map` trait is impl'd twice.
- For `!`, where the methods are all unreachable.
- For `map::Map`, which gets HIR stuff from the `TyCtxt`.
As part of getting rid of `map::Map`, this commit changes `impl
intravisit::Map for map::Map` to `impl intravisit::Map for TyCtxt`. It's
fairly straightforward except various things are renamed, because the
existing names would no longer have made sense.
- `trait intravisit::Map` becomes `trait intravisit::HirTyCtxt`, so named
because it gets some HIR stuff from a `TyCtxt`.
- `NestedFilter::Map` assoc type becomes `NestedFilter::MaybeTyCtxt`,
because it's always `!` or `TyCtxt`.
- `Visitor::nested_visit_map` becomes `Visitor::maybe_tcx`.
I deliberately made the new trait and associated type names different to
avoid the old `type Map: Map` situation, which I found confusing. We now
have `type MaybeTyCtxt: HirTyCtxt`.
The end goal is to eliminate `Map` altogether.
I added a `hir_` prefix to all of them, that seemed simplest. The
exceptions are `module_items` which became `hir_module_free_items` because
there was already a `hir_module_items`, and `items` which became
`hir_free_items` for consistency with `hir_module_free_items`.
There were two mistakes: first, tests were sorted before test modules, and second, we re-sorted based on the name only, which cancelled the sort based on the kind.
It's similar to the other limits, e.g. obtained via `get_limit`. So it
makes sense to handle it consistently with the other limits. We now use
`Limit`/`usize` in most places instead of `Option<usize>`, so we use
`Limit::new(usize::MAX)`/`usize::MAX` to emulate how `None` used to work.
The commit also adds `Limit::unlimited`.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #136986 (Apply unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn to the standard library)
- #137012 (add docs and ut for bootstrap util cc-detect)
- #137072 (Load all builtin targets at once instead of one by one in check-cfg)
- #137102 (Rework `name_regions` to not rely on reverse scc graph for non-member-constrain usages)
- #137112 (Don't project into `NonNull` when dropping a `Box`)
- #137114 (Add an example for `std::error::Error`)
- #137117 (Fix test that relies on error language)
- #137119 (fix broken `x {doc, build} core`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Fix musl's CVE-2025-26519
The musl project [announced CVE-2025-26519](https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2025/02/13/1), which could result in out-of-bounds writes when calling the `iconv` function. There is no musl release available with the fixes at this point in time (and we're using an older version of musl anyway), so this PR applies the provided patches on top of the musl source tarball we download.
And add a new diagnostic for non-`Fn` parenthesized generic args.
Path lowering started to look like a mess, with each function carrying additional parameters for the diagnostic callback (since paths can occur both in type and in expression/pattern position, and their diagnostic handling is different) and the segment index, for the diagnostics report. So I refactored it from stateless functions on `TyLoweringContext` into stateful struct, `PathLoweringContext`, that tracks the process of lowering a path from resolution til assoc types selection.
Apply unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn to the standard library
This applies unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn to the standard library in preparation for updating to Rust 2024.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127747 (I think?) cc ``@workingjubilee``
I have been testing a variety of targets, and I feel like they are all pretty much covered. I'll continue doing some testing async, but I don't expect to catch any more.
