Resolves#78911
The target's linker was used but rustc wasn't told to build for that
target (instead defaulting to the host). This led to the host instead of
the target getting tested and to the linker getting inappropriate
arguments.
Instruct LLVM that binary_search returns a valid index
This allows removing bound checks when the return value of `binary_search` is used to index into the slice it was call on. I also added a codegen test for this, not sure if it's the right thing to do (I didn't find anything on the dev guide), but it felt so.
resolve: Partially unify early and late scope-relative identifier resolution
Reuse `early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` instead of a chunk of code in `resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` doing the same job.
`early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope`/`visit_scopes` had to be slightly extended to be able to 1) start from a specific module instead of the current parent scope and 2) report one deprecation lint.
`early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` still doesn't support walking through "ribs", that part is left in `resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` (moreover, I'm pretty sure it's buggy, but that's a separate issue, cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/52389 at least).
Always preserve `None`-delimited groups in a captured `TokenStream`
Previously, we would silently remove any `None`-delimiters when
capturing a `TokenStream`, 'flattenting' them to their inner tokens.
This was not normally visible, since we usually have
`TokenKind::Interpolated` (which gets converted to a `None`-delimited
group during macro invocation) instead of an actual `None`-delimited
group.
However, there are a couple of cases where this becomes visible to
proc-macros:
1. A cross-crate `macro_rules!` macro has a `None`-delimited group
stored in its body (as a result of being produced by another
`macro_rules!` macro). The cross-crate `macro_rules!` invocation
can then expand to an attribute macro invocation, which needs
to be able to see the `None`-delimited group.
2. A proc-macro can invoke an attribute proc-macro with its re-collected
input. If there are any nonterminals present in the input, they will
get re-collected to `None`-delimited groups, which will then get
captured as part of the attribute macro invocation.
Both of these cases are incredibly obscure, so there hopefully won't be
any breakage. This change will allow more agressive 'flattenting' of
nonterminals in #82608 without losing `None`-delimited groups.
update array missing `IntoIterator` msg
fixes#82602
r? ```@estebank``` do you know whether we can use the expr span in `rustc_on_unimplemented`? The label isn't too great rn
make unaligned_references future-incompat lint warn-by-default
and also remove the safe_packed_borrows lint that it replaces.
`std::ptr::addr_of!` has hit beta now and will hit stable in a month, so I propose we start fixing https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27060 for real: creating a reference to a field of a packed struct needs to eventually become a hard error; this PR makes it a warn-by-default future-incompat lint. (The lint already existed, this just raises its default level.) At the same time I removed the corresponding code from unsafety checking; really there's no reason an `unsafe` block should make any difference here.
For references to packed fields outside `unsafe` blocks, this means `unaligned_refereces` replaces the previous `safe_packed_borrows` warning with a link to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82523 (and no more talk about unsafe blocks making any difference). So behavior barely changes, the warning is just worded differently. For references to packed fields inside `unsafe` blocks, this PR shows a new future-incompat warning.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/46043 because that lint no longer exists.
combine: stop eagerly evaluating consts
`super_relate_consts` eagerly evaluates constants which doesn't seem too great.
I now also finally understand why all of the unused substs test passed. The reason being
that we just evaluated the constants in `super_relate_consts` 😆
While this change isn't strictly necessary as evaluating consts here doesn't hurt, it still feels a lot cleaner to do it this way
r? `@oli-obk` `@nikomatsakis`
format macro argument parsing fix
When the character next to `{}` is "shifted" (when mapping a byte index
in the format string to span) we should avoid shifting the span end
index, so first map the index of `}` to span, then bump the span,
instead of first mapping the next byte index to a span (which causes
bumping the end span too much).
Regression test added.
Fixes#83344
---
r? ```@estebank```
Add IEEE 754 compliant fmt/parse of -0, infinity, NaN
This pull request improves the Rust float formatting/parsing libraries to comply with IEEE 754's formatting expectations around certain special values, namely signed zero, the infinities, and NaN. It also adds IEEE 754 compliance tests that, while less stringent in certain places than many of the existing flt2dec/dec2flt capability tests, are intended to serve as the beginning of a roadmap to future compliance with the standard. Some relevant documentation is also adjusted with clarifying remarks.
This PR follows from discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1074, and closes#24623.
The most controversial change here is likely to be that -0 is now printed as -0. Allow me to explain: While there appears to be community support for an opt-in toggle of printing floats as if they exist in the naively expected domain of numbers, i.e. not the extended reals (where floats live), IEEE 754-2019 is clear that a float converted to a string should be capable of being transformed into the original floating point bit-pattern when it satisfies certain conditions (namely, when it is an actual numeric value i.e. not a NaN and the original and destination float width are the same). -0 is given special attention here as a value that should have its sign preserved. In addition, the vast majority of other programming languages not only output `-0` but output `-0.0` here.
While IEEE 754 offers a broad leeway in how to handle producing what it calls a "decimal character sequence", it is clear that the operations a language provides should be capable of round tripping, and it is confusing to advertise the f32 and f64 types as binary32 and binary64 yet have the most basic way of producing a string and then reading it back into a floating point number be non-conformant with the standard. Further, existing documentation suggested that e.g. -0 would be printed with -0 regardless of the presence of the `+` fmt character, but it prints "+0" instead if given such (which was what led to the opening of #24623).
There are other parsing and formatting issues for floating point numbers which prevent Rust from complying with the standard, as well as other well-documented challenges on the arithmetic level, but I hope that this can be the beginning of motion towards solving those challenges.
When the character next to `{}` is "shifted" (when mapping a byte index
in the format string to span) we should avoid shifting the span end
index, so first map the index of `}` to span, then bump the span,
instead of first mapping the next byte index to a span (which causes
bumping the end span too much).
Regression test added.
Fixes#83344
Fixes to inline assmebly tests
* Join test thread to make assertion effective in sym.rs test case
* Use a single codegen unit to reduce non-determinism in srcloc.rs test #82886
Previously, we would silently remove any `None`-delimiters when
capturing a `TokenStream`, 'flattenting' them to their inner tokens.
This was not normally visible, since we usually have
`TokenKind::Interpolated` (which gets converted to a `None`-delimited
group during macro invocation) instead of an actual `None`-delimited
group.
However, there are a couple of cases where this becomes visible to
proc-macros:
1. A cross-crate `macro_rules!` macro has a `None`-delimited group
stored in its body (as a result of being produced by another
`macro_rules!` macro). The cross-crate `macro_rules!` invocation
can then expand to an attribute macro invocation, which needs
to be able to see the `None`-delimited group.
2. A proc-macro can invoke an attribute proc-macro with its re-collected
input. If there are any nonterminals present in the input, they will
get re-collected to `None`-delimited groups, which will then get
captured as part of the attribute macro invocation.
Both of these cases are incredibly obscure, so there hopefully won't be
any breakage. This change will allow more agressive 'flattenting' of
nonterminals in #82608 without losing `None`-delimited groups.
Ban custom inner attributes in expressions and statements
Split out from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/82608
Custom inner attributes are unstable, so this won't break any stable users.
This allows us to speed up token collection, and avoid a redundant call to `collect_tokens_no_attrs` when parsing an `Expr` that has outer attributes.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Fixes#83046
The program
fn main() {
println!("{:?}", '"');
println!("{:?}", "'");
}
would previously print
'\"'
"\'"
With this patch it now prints:
'"'
"'"
Don't ICE when using `#[global_alloc]` on a non-item statement
Fixes#83469
We need to return an `Annotatable::Stmt` if we were passed an
`Annotatable::Stmt`
Refactor #82270 as lint instead of an error
This PR fixes several issues with #82270 which generated an error when `.intel_syntax` or `.att_syntax` was used in inline assembly:
- It is now a warn-by-default lint instead of an error.
- The lint only triggers on x86. `.intel_syntax` and `.att_syntax` are only valid on x86.
- The lint no longer provides machine-applicable suggestions for two reasons:
- These changes should not be made automatically since changes to assembly code can be very subtle.
- The template string is not always just a string: it can contain macro invocation (`concat!`), raw strings, escape characters, etc.
cc ``@asquared31415``
Refactor rustc_resolve::late::lifetimes to resolve per-item
There are some changes to tests that I'd like some feedback on; so this is still WIP.
The reason behind this change will (hopefully) allow us to (as part of #76814) be able to essentially use the lifetime resolve code to resolve *all* late bound vars (including those of super traits). Currently, it only resolves those that are *syntactically* in scope. In #76814, I'm essentially finding that I would essentially have to redo the passing of bound vars through scopes (i.e. when instantiating a poly trait ref), and that's what this code does anyways. However, to be able to do this (ask super traits what bound vars are in scope), we have to be able to resolve items separately.
The first commit is actually partially orthogonal. Essentially removing one use of late bound debruijn indices.
Not exactly sure who would be best to review here.
Let r? `@nikomatsakis`
coverage bug fixes and optimization support
Adjusted LLVM codegen for code compiled with `-Zinstrument-coverage` to
address multiple, somewhat related issues.
Fixed a significant flaw in prior coverage solution: Every counter
generated a new counter variable, but there should have only been one
counter variable per function. This appears to have bloated .profraw
files significantly. (For a small program, it increased the size by
about 40%. I have not tested large programs, but there is anecdotal
evidence that profraw files were way too large. This is a good fix,
regardless, but hopefully it also addresses related issues.
Fixes: #82144
Invalid LLVM coverage data produced when compiled with -C opt-level=1
Existing tests now work up to at least `opt-level=3`. This required a
detailed analysis of the LLVM IR, comparisons with Clang C++ LLVM IR
when compiled with coverage, and a lot of trial and error with codegen
adjustments.
The biggest hurdle was figuring out how to continue to support coverage
results for unused functions and generics. Rust's coverage results have
three advantages over Clang's coverage results:
1. Rust's coverage map does not include any overlapping code regions,
making coverage counting unambiguous.
2. Rust generates coverage results (showing zero counts) for all unused
functions, including generics. (Clang does not generate coverage for
uninstantiated template functions.)
3. Rust's unused functions produce minimal stubbed functions in LLVM IR,
sufficient for including in the coverage results; while Clang must
generate the complete LLVM IR for each unused function, even though
it will never be called.
This PR removes the previous hack of attempting to inject coverage into
some other existing function instance, and generates dedicated instances
for each unused function. This change, and a few other adjustments
(similar to what is required for `-C link-dead-code`, but with lower
impact), makes it possible to support LLVM optimizations.
Fixes: #79651
Coverage report: "Unexecuted instantiation:..." for a generic function
from multiple crates
Fixed by removing the aforementioned hack. Some "Unexecuted
instantiation" notices are unavoidable, as explained in the
`used_crate.rs` test, but `-Zinstrument-coverage` has new options to
back off support for either unused generics, or all unused functions,
which avoids the notice, at the cost of less coverage of unused
functions.
Fixes: #82875
Invalid LLVM coverage data produced with crate brotli_decompressor
Fixed by disabling the LLVM function attribute that forces inlining, if
`-Z instrument-coverage` is enabled. This attribute is applied to
Rust functions with `#[inline(always)], and in some cases, the forced
inlining breaks coverage instrumentation and reports.
FYI: `@wesleywiser`
r? `@tmandry`
Add documentation for rustdoc-gui tests
I think a bit of documentation doesn't hurt in this case considering how "out of the ordinary" this is.
r? ``@jyn514``
Remove Option::{unwrap_none, expect_none}.
This removes `Option::unwrap_none` and `Option::expect_none` since we're not going to stabilize them, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62633.
Closes#62633
Fixes#80691
When we evaluate a trait predicate, we convert an
`EvaluatedToOk` result to `EvaluatedToOkModuloRegions` if we erased any
regions. We cache the result under a region-erased 'freshened'
predicate, so `EvaluatedToOk` may not be correct for other predicates
that have the same cache key.
