Add primary marker on codegen unit and generate main wrapper on primary codegen.
This is the codegen part of changes extracted from #84062.
This add a marker called `primary` on each codegen units, where exactly one codegen unit will be `primary = true` at a time. This specific codegen unit will take charge of generating `main` wrapper when `main` is imported from a foreign crate after the implementation of RFC 1260.
cc #28937
I'm not sure who should i ask for review for codegen changes, so feel free to reassign.
r? `@nagisa`
Improve support for NewPM
This adds various missing bits of support for NewPM and allows us to successfully run stage 2 tests with NewPM enabled.
This does not yet enable NewPM by default, as there are still known issue on LLVM 12 (such as a weak fat LTO pipeline). The plan is to make the switch after we update to LLVM 13.
Bump stdarch submodule
Major changes:
- More AVX-512 intrinsics.
- More ARM & AArch64 NEON intrinsics.
- Updated unstable WASM intrinsics to latest draft standards.
- Intrinsics that previously used `#[rustc_args_required_const]` now use const generics. See #83167 for more details.
- `std_detect` is now a separate crate instead of a submodule of `std`.
This causes an assertion failure under NewPM, because it also ends
up disabling the NameAnonGlobals pass.
Instead pass -Copt-level=0 to disable optimizations. If that should
be insufficient, we can use -C no-prepopulate-passes.
rustdoc: Link to the docs on namespaces when an unknown disambiguator is found
This was reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/84950; this re-lands the changes, but without different behavior depending on the channel.
r? `@camelid` cc `@pietroalbini`
Improve diagnostics for functions in `struct` definitions
Tries to implement #76421.
This is probably going to need unit tests, but I wanted to hear from review all the cases tests should cover.
I'd like to follow up with the "mechanically applicable suggestion here that adds an impl block" step, but I'd need guidance. My idea for now would be to try to parse a function, and if that succeeds, create a dummy `ast::Item` impl block to then format it using `pprust`. Would that be a viable approach? Is there a better alternative?
r? `@matklad` cc `@estebank`
rustc: Support Rust-specific features in -Ctarget-feature
Since the beginning of time the `-Ctarget-feature` flag on the command
line has largely been passed unmodified to LLVM. Afterwards, though, the
`#[target_feature]` attribute was stabilized and some of the names in
this attribute do not match the corresponding LLVM name. This is because
Rust doesn't always want to stabilize the exact feature name in LLVM for
the equivalent functionality in Rust. This creates a situation, however,
where in Rust you'd write:
#[target_feature(enable = "pclmulqdq")]
unsafe fn foo() {
// ...
}
but on the command line you would write:
RUSTFLAGS="-Ctarget-feature=+pclmul" cargo build --release
This difference is somewhat odd to deal with if you're a newcomer and
the situation may be made worse with upcoming features like [WebAssembly
SIMD](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74372) which may be more
prevalent.
This commit implements a mapping to translate requests via
`-Ctarget-feature` through the same name-mapping functionality that's
present for attributes in Rust going to LLVM. This means that
`+pclmulqdq` will work on x86 targets where as previously it did not.
I've attempted to keep this backwards-compatible where the compiler will
just opportunistically attempt to remap features found in
`-Ctarget-feature`, but if there's something it doesn't understand it
gets passed unmodified to LLVM just as it was before.
Unify rustc and rustdoc parsing of `cfg()`
This extracts a new `parse_cfg` function that's used between both.
- Treat `#[doc(cfg(x), cfg(y))]` the same as `#[doc(cfg(x)]
#[doc(cfg(y))]`. Previously it would be completely ignored.
- Treat `#[doc(inline, cfg(x))]` the same as `#[doc(inline)]
#[doc(cfg(x))]`. Previously, the cfg would be ignored.
- Pass the cfg predicate through to rustc_expand to be validated
Technically this is a breaking change, but doc_cfg is still nightly so I don't think it matters.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84437.
r? `````````@petrochenkov`````````
This test failed on an earlier version of this branch, where this did
not work properly, so I know the test works.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Previoously, if somehow this program got a wrong argument, it would
panic in the re-executed child. But that looks like a "success"
for this program! We mustn't panic unless everything is great.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
This tests that we can indeed safely panic after fork, both
a raw libc::fork and in a Command pre_exec hook.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Co-authored-by: Mara Bos <m-ou.se@m-ou.se>
Report coverage `0` of dead blocks
Fixes: #84018
With `-Z instrument-coverage`, coverage reporting of dead blocks
(for example, blocks dropped because a conditional branch is dropped,
based on const evaluation) is now supported.
If `instrument-coverage` is enabled, `simplify::remove_dead_blocks()`
finds all dropped coverage `Statement`s and adds their `code_region`s as
`Unreachable` coverage `Statement`s to the `START_BLOCK`, so they are
still included in the coverage map.
Check out the resulting changes in the test coverage reports in this PR (in [commit 1](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/84797/commits/0b0d293c7c46bdadf80e5304a667e34c53c0cf7e)).
r? `@tmandry`
cc: `@wesleywiser`
CTFE inbounds-error-messages tweak
* use CheckInAllocMsg::PointerArithmeticTest for ptr_offset error
* nicer errors for some null pointer cases
r? `@oli-obk`
Coverage instruments closure bodies in macros (not the macro body)
Fixes: #84884
This solution might be considered a compromise, but I think it is the
better choice.
The results in the `closure.rs` test correctly resolve all test cases
broken as described in #84884.
One test pattern (in both `closure_macro.rs` and
`closure_macro_async.rs`) was also affected, and removes coverage
statistics for the lines inside the closure, because the closure
includes a macro. (The coverage remains at the callsite of the macro, so
we lose some detail, but there isn't a perfect choice with macros.
Often macro implementations are split across the macro and the callsite,
and there doesn't appear to be a single "right choice" for which body
should be covered. For the current implementation, we can't do both.
The callsite is most likely to be the preferred site for coverage.
r? `@tmandry`
cc: `@wesleywiser`
Removes unneeded check of `#[no_coverage]` in mapgen
There is an anticipated feature request to support a compiler flag that
only adds coverage for specific files (or perhaps mods). As I thought
about where that change would need to be supported, I realized that
checking the attribute in mapgen (for unused functions) was unnecessary.
The unused functions are only synthesized if they have MIR coverage, and
functions with the `no_coverage` attribute will not have been
instrumented with MIR coverage statements in the first place.
New tests confirm this.
Also, while adding tests, I updated resolved comments and FIXMEs in
other tests, and expanded comments and tests on one remaining issue that
is still not resolved.
r? `@tmandry`
cc: `@wesleywiser`
Disallows `#![feature(no_coverage)]` on stable and beta (using standard crate-level gating)
Fixes: #84836
Removes the function-level feature gating solution originally implemented, and solves the same problem using `allow_internal_unstable`, so normal crate-level feature gating mechanism can still be used (which disallows the feature on stable and beta).
I tested this, building the compiler with and without `CFG_DISABLE_UNSTABLE_FEATURES=1`
With unstable features disabled, I get the expected result as shown here:
```shell
$ ./build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/bin/rustc src/test/run-make-fulldeps/coverage/no_cov_crate.rs
error[E0554]: `#![feature]` may not be used on the dev release channel
--> src/test/run-make-fulldeps/coverage/no_cov_crate.rs:2:1
|
2 | #![feature(no_coverage)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0554`.
```
r? ````@Mark-Simulacrum````
cc: ````@tmandry```` ````@wesleywiser````
Add `needs-unwind` and beginning of support for testing `panic=abort` std to compiletest
For the Fuchsia platform we build libstd with `panic=abort` and would like a way to run tests with that enabled. This adds low-level support for this directly to compiletest.
In the future I'd like to add high-level support in rustbuild, e.g. having target-specific flags that allow configuring a panic strategy. (Side note: It would be nice if we could also build multiple configurations for the same target, but I'm getting ahead of myself.)
This plus #84500 have everything that's needed to get ui tests passing on fuchsia targets.
Part of #84766. Note that this change only includes the header on tests which need an unwinder to _build_, not those which need it to _run_.
r? ````@Mark-Simulacrum````
Add test for suggestion to borrow unsized function parameters
Closes#82820.
This is a regression test for #82820.
This test case is included in more general tests, but I think the error
regressed because there were a bunch of other diagnostic changes in the
test that obscured this regression.
Hopefully, having a test specific to the suggestion, and running rustfix
for the test, will prevent this error from regressing in the future.
And adds tests to validate it still works.
There is an anticipated feature request to support a compiler flag that
only adds coverage for specific files (or perhaps mods). As I thought
about where that change would need to be supported, I realized that
checking the attribute in mapgen (for unused functions) was unnecessary.
The unused functions are only synthesized if they have MIR coverage, and
functions with the `no_coverage` attribute will not have been
instrumented with MIR coverage statements in the first place.
New tests confirm this.
Also, while adding tests, I updated resolved comments and FIXMEs in
other tests.
