[beta] backport #94925
backports #94925
looks like that PR might have slipped through 🤔 does it help if there's an open issue to track that in the future, or are there other things I can do to make this less likely in the future?
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
[beta] Remove statement that was forgotten when backporting #94596
This `if` statement was introduced in #94438, then removed in #94596. Both of these PRs were beta-backported in #94933, but I think there was a mistake in the order they were applied or this removal was overlooked. I think this fixes the remaining issues referenced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94511#issuecomment-1072851886.
Not sure this is the correct way to put something up for beta-backport, but the PR is at least open so it can be referenced and the commit can be cherry-picked. Feel free to close this PR.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
cc: #94511
[beta] backports + bootstrap bump
Add pending backports:
* Revert accidental stabilization #94805
* Do not recover from Ty? in macro parsing #94593
* Fix cmake build. #95050
And updates the bootstrap compiler to 1.59.0.
First, this reverts the `CFLAGS`/`CXXFLAGS` of #93918. Those flags are
already read by `cc` and populated into `Build` earlier on in the
process. We shouldn't be overriding that based on `CFLAGS`, since `cc`
also respects overrides like `CFLAGS_{TARGET}` and `HOST_CFLAGS`, which
we want to take into account.
Second, this adds the same capability to specify target-specific
versions of `LDFLAGS` as we have through `cc` for the `C*` flags:
https://github.com/alexcrichton/cc-rs#external-configuration-via-environment-variables
Note that this also necessitated an update to compiletest to treat
CXXFLAGS separately from CFLAGS.
PR #93918 made it so that `-static-libstdc++` was only set in one place,
and was only set during linking, but accidentally also made it so that
it is no longer passed when building LLD or sanitizers, only when
building LLVM itself. This moves the logic for setting
`-static-libstdc++` in the linker flags back to `configure_cmake` so
that it takes effect for all CMake invocations in `native.rs`.
As a side-effect, this also causes libstdc++ to be statically compiled
into sanitizers and LLD if `llvm-tools-enabled` is set but
`llvm-static-stdcpp` is not, even though previously it was only linked
statically if `llvm-static-stdcpp` was set explicitly. But that seems
more like the expected behavior anyway.
No branch protection metadata unless enabled
Even if we emit metadata disabling branch protection, this metadata may
conflict with other modules (e.g. during LTO) that have different branch
protection metadata set.
This is an unstable flag and feature, so ideally the flag not being
specified should act as if the feature wasn't implemented in the first
place.
Additionally this PR also ensures we emit an error if
`-Zbranch-protection` is set on targets other than the supported
aarch64. For now the error is being output from codegen, but ideally it
should be moved to earlier in the pipeline before stabilization.
Add debug assertions to validate NUL terminator in c strings
The `unchecked` variants from the stdlib usually perform the check anyway if debug assertions are on (for example, `unwrap_unchecked`). This PR does the same thing for `CStr` and `CString`, validating the correctness for the NUL byte in debug mode.
rustdoc-json: buffer output
It turns out we were doing syscalls for each part of the json syntax
Before:
```
...
[pid 1801267] write(5, "\"", 1) = 1
[pid 1801267] write(5, ",", 1) = 1
[pid 1801267] write(5, "\"", 1) = 1
...
```
After:
```
[pid 1974821] write(5, "{\"root\":\"0:0\",\"crate_version\":nu"..., 1575) = 1575
```
In one benchmark (one struct, almost all time in `std`), this gives ~2x perf
r? `@CraftSpider`
`@rustbot` modify labels: +A-rustdoc-json +T-rustdoc -A-testsuite
Destabilise entry_insert
See: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90345
I didn't revert the rename that was done in that PR, I left it as `entry_insert`.
Additionally, before that PR, `VacantEntry::insert_entry` seemingly had no stability attribute on it? I kept the attribute, just made it an unstable one, same as the one on `Entry`.
There didn't seem to be any mention of this in the RELEASES.md, so I don't think there's anything for me to do other than this?
Rollup of 10 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #89892 (Suggest `impl Trait` return type when incorrectly using a generic return type)
- #91675 (Add MemTagSanitizer Support)
- #92806 (Add more information to `impl Trait` error)
- #93497 (Pass `--test` flag through rustdoc to rustc so `#[test]` functions can be scraped)
- #93814 (mips64-openwrt-linux-musl: correct soft-foat)
- #93847 (kmc-solid: Use the filesystem thread-safety wrapper)
- #93877 (asm: Allow the use of r8-r14 as clobbers on Thumb1)
- #93892 (Only mark projection as ambiguous if GAT substs are constrained)
- #93915 (Implement --check-cfg option (RFC 3013), take 2)
- #93953 (Add the `known-bug` test directive, use it, and do some cleanup)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add the `known-bug` test directive, use it, and do some cleanup
cc rust-lang/compiler-team#476
Now tests can be annotated with `known-bug`, which should indicate that the test *should* pass (or at least that the current output is a bug). Adding it relaxes the requirement to add error annotations to the test (though it is still allowed). In the future, this could be extended with further relaxations - with the goal to make adding these tests need minimal effort.
I've used this attribute for the GAT tests added in #93757.
Finally, I've also cleaned up `header.rs` in compiletest a bit, by extracting out a bit of common logic. I've also split out some of the directives into their own consts. This removes a lot of very similar functions from `Config` and makes `TestProps::load_from` read nicer.
I've split these into separate commits, so I in theory could split these into separate PRs if they're controversial, but I think they're pretty straightforward.
r? ``@Mark-Simulacrum``
Only mark projection as ambiguous if GAT substs are constrained
A slightly more targeted version of #92917, where we only give up with ambiguity if we infer something about the GATs substs when probing for a projection candidate.
fixes#93874
also note (but like the previous PR, does not fix) #91762
r? `@jackh726`
cc `@nikomatsakis` who reviewed #92917
