rustdoc: Don't enter an infer_ctxt in get_blanket_impls for impls that aren't blanket impls
Less broken version of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/82856.
get_blanket_impls is a *very* hot region of rustdoc, so even small changes like this should help. Unfortunately I don't have benchmarks for this until https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-perf/pull/802 is merged.
Riscv64linux Test fixes
Get tests passing again using the riscv64gc-unknown-linux-gnu docker image.
Test with
```
src/ci/docker/run.sh riscv64gc-linux
```
## linkcheck
Linkcheck tests that interdocument links in the documentation are correct. Some interdocument links go between rustc and tools (such as rustdoc and cargo). When cross compiling, rustc is built for the host while some tools are built for the target. This goes for the documentation too. Because of this, links in the rustc documentation reffering to cargo or rustdoc documentation look broken.
This issue is worked around by disabling linkcheck for cross compilation builds.
## run-make tests
#78911 seems to happen because `--target` was not passed to `rustc`, but the target linker was specified, causing the target linker to be called with options intended for the host.
Resolves#78911
In a separate issue, `issue-36710` was trying to run a binary built for the target on the host system. This will not work for any platform using `remote-test-server`/`client` (such as riscv64). I don't know of a way of skipping those platforms specifically, so I set this test to skip only on riscv64 for now.
update Miri, and also run test suite with mir-opt-level=4
In the Miri repo, we run the Miri test suite once with default flags and once with `-O -Zmir-opt-level=4`. This helps identify and document situations where MIR optimizations mask UB -- it is okay for that to happen, but it might be god to look into it when it does happen. Recently these tests failed fairly frequently as new MIR optimizations were added, and since we only run them on the Miri side, it is not even clear which rustc PR introduced the change. So I propose we also run these tests in the rustc repo, such that toolstate tracking will tell us the exact PR (or at least the rollup) that caused the change.
r? `@oli-obk`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/83590
unaligned_references: align(N) fields in packed(N) structs are fine
This removes some false positives from the unaligned_references lint: in a `repr(packed(2))` struct, fields of alignment 2 (and less) are guaranteed to be properly aligned, so we do not have to consider them "disaligned".
The tests issue-36710 and incr-prev-body-beyond-eof were changed in a
previous commit so that the correct target was passed to rustc
(previously rustc was building for the host not for the specific
target).
Since that change it turns out that these platforms never worked (they
only appeared to work because rustc was actually building for the host
architecture).
The wasm architectures fall over trying to build the C++ file in
issue-36710. They look for clang (which isn't installed in the
test-various docker container). If clang is installed, they can't find
a wasm c++ standard library to link to.
nvtptx64-nvidia-cuda fails in rustc saying it can't find std. The rust
platforms support page says that std is supported on cuda so this is
surprising.
dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl can't find the C++ compiler. There is only
a musl-gcc and no musl-g++ in /musl-i586/bin/. The Docker image probably
needs tweaking.
When we cross compile, some things (and their documentation) are built
for the host (e.g. rustc), while others (and their documentation) are built
for the target. This generated documentation will have broken links
between documentation for different platforms e.g. between rustc and
cargo.
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.
Found with https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer.
Dubious changes:
- Is anyone else using rustc_apfloat? I feel weird completely deleting
x87 support.
- Maybe some of the dead code in rustc_data_structures, in case someone
wants to use it in the future?
- Don't change rustc_serialize
I plan to scrap most of the json module in the near future (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/418) and fixing the
tests needed more work than I expected.
TODO: check if any of the comments on the deleted code should be kept.
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.
rustdoc: Use diagnostics for error when including sources
This error probably almost never happens, but we should still use the
diagnostic infrastructure. My guess is that the error was added back
before rustdoc used the rustc diagnostic infrastructure (it was all
`println!` and `eprintln!` back then!) and since it likely rarely occurs
and this code doesn't change that much, no one thought to transition it
to using diagnostics.
Note that the old error was actually a warning (it didn't stop the rest
of doc building). It seems very unlikely that this would fail without
the rest of the doc build failing, so it makes more sense for it to be a
hard error.
The error looks like this:
error: failed to render source code for `src/test/rustdoc/smart-punct.rs`: "bar": foo
--> src/test/rustdoc/smart-punct.rs:3:1
|
3 | / #![crate_name = "foo"]
4 | |
5 | | //! This is the "start" of the 'document'! How'd you know that "it's" ...
6 | | //!
... |
22 | | //! I say "don't smart-punct me -- please!"
23 | | //! ```
| |_______^
I wasn't sure how to trigger the error, so to create that message I
temporarily made rustdoc always emit it. That's also why it says "bar"
and "foo" instead of a real error message.
Note that the span of the diagnostic starts at line 3 because line 1 of
that file is a (non-doc) comment and line 2 is a blank line.
Add function core::iter::zip
This makes it a little easier to `zip` iterators:
```rust
for (x, y) in zip(xs, ys) {}
// vs.
for (x, y) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys) {}
```
You can `zip(&mut xs, &ys)` for the conventional `iter_mut()` and
`iter()`, respectively. This can also support arbitrary nesting, where
it's easier to see the item layout than with arbitrary `zip` chains:
```rust
for ((x, y), z) in zip(zip(xs, ys), zs) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in zip(xs, zip(ys, zs)) {}
// vs.
for ((x, y), z) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys).zip(xz) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in xs.into_iter().zip((ys.into_iter().zip(xz)) {}
```
It may also format more nicely, especially when the first iterator is a
longer chain of methods -- for example:
```rust
iter::zip(
trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
)
// vs.
trait_ref
.substs
.types()
.skip(1)
.zip(impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1))
```
This replaces the tuple-pair `IntoIterator` in #78204.
There is prior art for the utility of this in [`itertools::zip`].
[`itertools::zip`]: https://docs.rs/itertools/0.10.0/itertools/fn.zip.html
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```
