Normalize alloc-id in tests.
AllocIds are globally numbered in a rustc invocation. This makes them very sensitive to changes unrelated to what is being tested. This commit normalizes them by renumbering, in order of appearance in the output.
The renumbering allows to keep the identity, that a simple `allocN` wouldn't. This is useful when we have memory dumps.
cc `@saethlin`
r? `@oli-obk`
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #111072 (Add new simpler and more explicit syntax for check-cfg)
- #116717 (Special case iterator chain checks for suggestion)
- #116719 (Add MonoItems and Instance to stable_mir)
- #116787 (Implement an internal lint encouraging use of `Span::eq_ctxt`)
- #116827 (Make `handle_options` public again.)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Implement an internal lint encouraging use of `Span::eq_ctxt`
Adds a new Rustc internal lint that forbids use of `.ctxt() == .ctxt()` for spans, encouraging use of `.eq_ctxt()` instead (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49509).
Also fixed a few violations of the lint in the Rustc codebase (a fun additional way I could test my code). Edit: MIR opt folks I believe that's why you're CC'ed, just a heads up.
Two things I'm not sure about:
1. The way I chose to detect calls to `Span::ctxt`. I know adding diagnostic items to methods is generally discouraged, but after some searching and experimenting I couldn't find anything else that worked, so I went with it. That said, I'm happy to implement something different if there's a better way out there. (For what it's worth, if there is a better way, it might be worth documenting in the rustc-dev-guide, which I'm happy to take care of)
2. The error message for the lint. Ideally it would probably be good to give some context as to why the suggestion is made (e.g. `rustc::default_hash_types` tells the user that it's because of performance), but I don't have that context so I couldn't put it in the error message. Happy to iterate on the error message based on feedback during review.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Add new simpler and more explicit syntax for check-cfg
<details>
<summary>
Old proposition (before the MCP)
</summary>
This PR adds a new simpler and more explicit syntax for check-cfg. It consist of two new form:
- `exhaustive(names, values)`
- `configure(name, "value1", "value2", ... "valueN")`
The preview forms `names(...)` and `values(...)` have implicit meaning that are not strait-forward. In particular `values(foo)`&`values(bar)` and `names(foo, bar)` are not equivalent which has created [some confusions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98080).
Also the `names()` and `values()` form are not clear either and again created some confusions where peoples believed that `values()`&`values(foo)` could be reduced to just `values(foo)`.
To fix that the two new forms are made to be explicit and simpler. See the table of correspondence:
- `names()` -> `exhaustive(names)`
- `values()` -> `exhaustive(values)`
- `names(foo)` -> `exhaustive(names)`&`configure(foo)`
- `values(foo)` -> `configure(foo)`
- `values(feat, "foo", "bar")` -> `configure(feat, "foo", "bar")`
- `values(foo)`&`values(bar)` -> `configure(foo, bar)`
- `names()`&`values()`&`values(my_cfg)` -> `exhaustive(names, values)`&`configure(my_cfg)`
Another benefits of the new syntax is that it allow for further options (like conditional checking for --cfg, currently always on) without syntax change.
The two previous forms are deprecated and will be removed once cargo and beta rustc have the necessary support.
</details>
This PR is the first part of the implementation of [MCP636 - Simplify and improve explicitness of the check-cfg syntax](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/636).
## New `cfg` form
It introduces the new [`cfg` form](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/636) and deprecate the other two:
```
rustc --check-cfg 'cfg(name1, ..., nameN, values("value1", "value2", ... "valueN"))'
```
## Default built-in names and values
It also changes the default for the built-in names and values checking.
- Built-in values checking would always be activated as long as a `--check-cfg` argument is present
- Built-in names checking would always be activated as long as a `--check-cfg` argument is present **unless** if any `cfg(any())` arg is passed
~~**Note: depends on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111068 but is reviewable (last two commits)!**~~
Resolve https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/636
r? `@petrochenkov`
Updated libc and doc for Vita target
Doc changes:
- Updated Vita target readme. The recommended approach to build artifacts for the platform now is [cargo-vita](https://crates.io/crates/cargo-vita) which wraps all the convoluted steps previously described in a yaml for `cargo-make`
- Updated maintainer list for Vita target. (`@ZetaNumbers` `@pheki` please agree to be added to the list, `@amg98` please let us know if you're still planning on actively maintaining target support)
Code changes:
- ~Updated libc for rust-lang/libc#3284 and rust-lang/libc#3366~ (Already merged in #116527)
- In dupfd changed the flag same as for esp target, there is no CLOEXEC on Vita
- Enabled `new_pair` since we've implemented `socketpair` in Vita newlib
Use tidy to enforce alphabetical dependency ordering
I get annoyed when dependencies in `Cargo.toml` files are not in alphabetical order. The [style guide](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/doc/style-guide/src/cargo.md) agrees with me.
There are ongoing efforts to provide linting/formatting of `Cargo.toml` files, e.g. https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/pull/5240, https://crates.io/crates/cargo-toml-lint, and https://github.com/TimonPost/cargo-toml-format. But it's far from clear what's the right approach.
So this PR does something very simple: it uses the order checking already present in tidy. This allows incremental application of ordering, starting right now, and avoiding the need for any kind of all-at-once conversion.
If we do end up using some more comprehensive `Cargo.toml` linting/formatting solution in the future, the `tidy-alphabetical` lines will be easy to remove.
r? `@wesleywiser`
Improve display of parallel jobs in rustdoc-gui tester script
If no `-j` option is not passed to `x.py`, it would display `-1`, which isn't great.
r? `@notriddle`
Add `Config::hash_untracked_state` callback
For context, I'm looking to use [late module passes](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_lint/context/struct.LintStore.html#structfield.late_module_passes) in Clippy which unlike regular late passes run incrementally per module
However we have a config file which can change between runs, we need changes to that to invalidate the `lint_mod` query. This PR adds a side channel for us to hash some extra state into `Options` in order to do that
This does not make any changes to Clippy, I plan to do that in a PR to the Clippy repo along with some other required changes
An alternative implementation would be to add a new query to track this state and override the `lint_mod` query in Clippy to first call that
cc `@rust-lang/clippy`
don't UB on dangling ptr deref, instead check inbounds on projections
This implements https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1387 in Miri. See that PR for what the change is about.
Detecting dangling references in `let x = &...;` is now done by validity checking only, so some tests need to have validity checking enabled. There is no longer inherently a "nodangle" check in evaluating the expression `&*ptr` (aside from the aliasing model).
r? `@oli-obk`
Based on:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1387
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115524
It's a better name, and lets "active features" refer to the features
that are active in a particular program, due to being declared or
enabled by the edition.
The commit also renames `Features::enabled` as `Features::active` to
match this; I changed my mind and have decided that "active" is a little
better thatn "enabled" for this, particularly because a number of
pre-existing comments use "active" in this way.
Finally, the commit renames `Status::Stable` as `Status::Accepted`, to
match `ACCEPTED_FEATURES`.
Implement sys::args for UEFI
- Uses `EFI_LOADED_IMAGE_PROTOCOL`, which is implemented for all loaded images.
Tested on qemu with OVMF
cc ``@nicholasbishop``
cc ``@dvdhrm``
Optimize `librustc_driver.so` with BOLT
This PR optimizes `librustc_driver.so` on 64-bit Linux CI with BOLT.
### Code
One thing that's not clear yet to me how to resolve is how to best pass a linker flag that we need for BOLT (the second commit). It is currently passed unconditionally, which is not a good idea. We somehow have to:
1) Only pass it when we actually plan to use BOLT. How to best do that? `config.toml` entry? Environment variable? CLI flag for bootstrap? BOLT optimization is done by `opt-dist`, therefore bootstrap doesn't know about it by default.
2) Only pass it to `librustc_driver.so` (see performance below).
Some discussion of this flag already happened on [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/326414-t-infra.2Fbootstrap/topic/Adding.20a.20one-off.20linker.20flag).
### Performance
Latest perf. results can be found [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102487#issuecomment-1743469053). Note that instruction counts are not very interesting here, there are only regressions on hello world programs. Probably caused by a larger C++ libstd (?).
Summary:
- ✔️ `-1.8%` mean improvement in cycle counts across many primary benchmarks.
- ✔️ `-1.8%` mean Max-RSS improvement.
- ✖️ 34 MiB (+48%) artifact size regression of `librustc_driver.so`.
- This is caused by building `librustc_driver.so` with relocations (which are required for BOLT). Hopefully, it will be [fixed](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/bolt-rfc-a-new-mode-to-rewrite-entire-binary/68674) in the future with BOLT improvements, but now trying to reduce this size increase is [tricky](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114649).
- Note that the size of this file was recently reduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115554 by pretty much the same amount (33 MiB). So the size after this PR is basically the same as it was for the last ~year.
- ✖️ 1.4 MiB (+53%) artifact size regression of `rustc`.
- This is annoying and pretty much unnecessary. It is caused by the way relocations are currently applied in this PR, because they are applied both to `librustc_driver.so` (where they are needed) and for `rustc` (where they aren't needed), since both are built with a single cargo invocation. We might need e.g. some tricks in the bootstrap `rustc` shim to only apply the relocation flag for the shared library and not for `rustc`.
### CI time
CI (try build) got slower by ~5 minutes, which is fine, IMO. It can be further reduced by running LLVM and `librustc_driver` BOLT profile gathering at the same time (now they are gathered separately for LLVM and `librustc_driver`).
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Also CC `@onur-ozkan,` primarily for the bootstrap linker flag issue.
