Implement `pin!()` using `super let`
Tracking issue for super let: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076
This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.
This means we can remove [the hack](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138717) we had to put in to fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138596.
It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.
While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.
It'd help [the experiment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals`
Closes#131204
`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated
This will end up conflicting with the test in #138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating
--
# Stabilization Report
## General design
### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?
[RFC 3695](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695), none.
### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.
None
### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?
None
## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?
Yes; only positive feedback was received.
## Implementation quality
### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)
Implemented in [#131034](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131034).
### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature
- [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs)
- [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs)
- [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs)
- [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs)
- Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs`
- Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs`
### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?
The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature.
### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?
None
### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
- `@clubby789` (RFC)
- `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc)
### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?
`rustdoc`'s unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized.
## Type system and execution rules
### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)
A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.
enforce unsafe attributes in pre-2024 editions by default
New unsafe attributes should emit an error when used without the `unsafe(...)` in all editions.
The `no_mangle`, `link_section` and `export_name` attributes are exceptions, and can still be used without an unsafe in earlier editions. The only attributes for which this change is relevant right now are `#[ffi_const]` and `#[ffi_pure]`.
This change is required for making `#[unsafe(naked)]` sound in pre-2024 editions.
add `naked_functions_rustic_abi` feature gate
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138997
Because the details of the rust abi are unstable, and a naked function must match its stated ABI, this feature gate keeps naked functions with a rustic abi ("Rust", "rust-cold", "rust-call" and "rust-intrinsic") unstable.
r? ````@traviscross````
Remove support for `extern "rust-intrinsic"` blocks
Part of rust-lang/rust#132735
Looked manageable and there didn't appear to have been progress in the last two weeks,
so decided to give it a try.
Experimental feature gate for `super let`
This adds an experimental feature gate, `#![feature(super_let)]`, for the `super let` experiment.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076
Liaison: ``@nikomatsakis``
## Description
There's a rough (inaccurate) description here: https://blog.m-ou.se/super-let/
In short, `super let` allows you to define something that lives long enough to be borrowed by the tail expression of the block. For example:
```rust
let a = {
super let b = temp();
&b
};
```
Here, `b` is extended to live as long as `a`, similar to how in `let a = &temp();`, the temporary will be extended to live as long as `a`.
## Properties
During the temporary lifetimes work we did last year, we explored the properties of "super let" and concluded that the fundamental property should be that these two are always equivalent in any context:
1. `& $expr`
2. `{ super let a = & $expr; a }`
And, additionally, that these are equivalent in any context when `$expr` is a temporary (aka rvalue):
1. `& $expr`
2. `{ super let a = $expr; & a }`
This makes it possible to give a name to a temporary without affecting how temporary lifetimes work, such that a macro can transparently use a block in its expansion, without that having any effect on the outside.
## Implementing pin!() correctly
With `super let`, we can properly implement the `pin!()` macro without hacks: ✨
```rust
pub macro pin($value:expr $(,)?) {
{
super let mut pinned = $value;
unsafe { $crate::pin::Pin::new_unchecked(&mut pinned) }
}
}
```
This is important, as there is currently no way to express it without hacks in Rust 2021 and before (see [hacky definition](2a06022951/library/core/src/pin.rs (L1947))), and no way to express it at all in Rust 2024 (see [issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138718)).
## Fixing format_args!()
This will also allow us to express `format_args!()` in a way where one can assign the result to a variable, fixing a [long standing issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/92698):
```rust
let f = format_args!("Hello {name}!"); // error today, but accepted in the future! (after separate FCP)
```
## Experiment
The precise definition of `super let`, what happens for `super let x;` (without initializer), and whether to accept `super let _ = _ else { .. }` are still open questions, to be answered by the experiment.
Furthermore, once we have a more complete understanding of the feature, we might be able to come up with a better syntax. (Which could be just a different keywords, or an entirely different way of naming temporaries that doesn't involve a block and a (super) let statement.)
Add the new `amx` target features and the `movrs` target feature
Adds 5 new `amx` target features included in LLVM20. These are guarded under `x86_amx_intrinsics` (#126622)
- `amx-avx512`
- `amx-fp8`
- `amx-movrs`
- `amx-tf32`
- `amx-transpose`
Adds the `movrs` target feature (from #137976).
`@rustbot` label O-x86_64 O-x86_32 T-compiler A-target-feature
r? `@Amanieu`
remove `feature(inline_const_pat)`
Summarizing https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/144729-t-types/topic/remove.20feature.28inline_const_pat.29.20and.20shared.20borrowck.
With https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/129 we will start to borrowck items together with their typeck parent. This is necessary to correctly support opaque types, blocking the new solver and TAIT/ATPIT stabilization with the old one. This means that we cannot really support `inline_const_pat` as they are implemented right now:
- we want to typeck inline consts together with their parent body to allow inference to flow both ways and to allow the const to refer to local regions of its parent.This means we also need to borrowck the inline const together with its parent as that's necessary to properly support opaque types
- we want the inline const pattern to participate in exhaustiveness checking
- to participate in exhaustiveness checking we need to evaluate it, which requires borrowck, which now relies on borrowck of the typeck root, which ends up checking exhaustiveness again. **This is a query cycle**.
There are 4 possible ways to handle this:
- stop typechecking inline const patterns together with their parent
- causes inline const patterns to be different than inline const exprs
- prevents bidirectional inference, we need to either fail to compile `if let const { 1 } = 1u32` or `if let const { 1u32 } = 1`
- region inference for inline consts will be harder, it feels non-trivial to support inline consts referencing local regions from the parent fn
- inline consts no longer participate in exhaustiveness checking. Treat them like `pat if pat == const { .. }` instead. We then only evaluate them after borrowck
- difference between `const { 1 }` and `const FOO: usize = 1; match x { FOO => () }`. This is confusing
- do they carry their weight if they are now just equivalent to using an if-guard
- delay exhaustiveness checking until after borrowck
- should be possible in theory, but is a quite involved change and may have some unexpected challenges
- remove this feature for now
I believe we should either delay exhaustiveness checking or remove the feature entirely. As moving exhaustiveness checking to after borrow checking is quite complex I think the right course of action is to fully remove the feature for now and to add it again once/if we've got that implementation figured out.
`const { .. }`-expressions remain stable. These seem to have been the main motivation for https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/2920.
r? types
cc `@rust-lang/types` `@rust-lang/lang` #76001
Stabilize `#![feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)]`
# Precise capturing (`+ use<>` bounds) in traits - Stabilization Report
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130044.
## Stabilization summary
This report proposes the stabilization of `use<>` precise capturing bounds in return-position impl traits in traits (RPITITs). This completes a missing part of [RFC 3617 "Precise capturing"].
Precise capturing in traits was not ready for stabilization when the first subset was proposed for stabilization (namely, RPITs on free and inherent functions - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127672) since this feature has a slightly different implementation, and it hadn't yet been implemented or tested at the time. It is now complete, and the type system implications of this stabilization are detailed below.
## Motivation
Currently, RPITITs capture all in-scope lifetimes, according to the decision made in the ["lifetime capture rules 2024" RFC](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3498-lifetime-capture-rules-2024.html#return-position-impl-trait-in-trait-rpitit). However, traits can be designed such that some lifetimes in arguments may not want to be captured. There is currently no way to express this.
## Major design decisions since the RFC
No major decisions were made. This is simply an extension to the RFC that was understood as a follow-up from the original stabilization.
## What is stabilized?
Users may write `+ use<'a, T>` bounds on their RPITITs. This conceptually modifies the desugaring of the RPITIT to omit the lifetimes that we would copy over from the method. For example,
```rust
trait Foo {
fn method<'a>(&'a self) -> impl Sized;
// ... desugars to something like:
type RPITIT_1<'a>: Sized;
fn method_desugared<'a>(&'a self) -> Self::RPITIT_1<'a>;
// ... whereas with precise capturing ...
fn precise<'a>(&'a self) -> impl Sized + use<Self>;
// ... desugars to something like:
type RPITIT_2: Sized;
fn precise_desugared<'a>(&'a self) -> Self::RPITIT_2;
}
```
And thus the GAT doesn't name `'a`. In the compiler internals, it's not implemented exactly like this, but not in a way that users should expect to be able to observe.
#### Limitations on what generics must be captured
Currently, we require that all generics from the trait (including the `Self`) type are captured. This is because the generics from the trait are required to be *invariant* in order to do associated type normalization.
And like regular precise capturing bounds, all type and const generics in scope must be captured.
Thus, only the in-scope method lifetimes may be relaxed with this syntax today.
## What isn't stabilized? (a.k.a. potential future work)
See section above. Relaxing the requirement to capture all type and const generics in scope may be relaxed when https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130043 is implemented, however it currently interacts with some underexplored corners of the type system (e.g. unconstrained type bivariance) so I don't expect it to come soon after.
## Implementation summary
This functionality is implemented analogously to the way that *opaque type* precise capturing works.
Namely, we currently use *variance* to model the capturedness of lifetimes. However, since RPITITs are anonymous GATs instead of opaque types, we instead modify the type relation of GATs to consider variances for RPITITs (along with opaque types which it has done since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103491).
30f168ef81/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/util.rs (L954-L976)30f168ef81/compiler/rustc_type_ir/src/relate.rs (L240-L244)
Using variance to model capturedness is an implementation detail, and in the future it would be desirable if opaques and RPITITs simply did not include the uncaptured lifetimes in their generics. This can be changed in a forwards-compatible way, and almost certainly would not be observable by users (at least not negatively, since it may indeed fix some bugs along the way).
## Tests
* Test that the lifetime isn't actually captured: `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit.rs` and `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit-outlives.rs` and `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit-outlives-2.rs`.
* Technical test for variance computation: `tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait/variance.rs`.
* Test that you must capture all trait generics: `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/forgot-to-capture-type.rs`.
* Test that you cannot capture more than what the trait specifies: `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit-captures-more-method-lifetimes.rs` and `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit-impl-captures-too-much.rs`.
* Undercapturing (refinement) lint: `tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait/refine-captures.rs`.
### What other unstable features may be exposed by this feature?
I don't believe that this exposes any new unstable features indirectly.
## Remaining bugs and open issues
Not aware of any open issues or bugs.
## Tooling support
Rustfmt: ✅ Supports formatting `+ use<>` everywhere.
Clippy: ✅ No support needed, unless specific clippy lints are impl'd to care for precise capturing itself.
Rustdoc: ✅ Rendering `+ use<>` precise capturing bounds is supported.
Rust-analyzer: ✅ Parser support, and then lifetime support isn't needed https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138128#issuecomment-2705292494 (previous: ~~❓ There is parser support, but I am unsure of rust-analyzer's level of support for RPITITs in general.~~)
## History
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130044
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131033
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132795
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136554
add `naked_functions_target_feature` unstable feature
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138568
tagging https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134213https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
This PR puts `#[target_feature(/* ... */)]` on `#[naked]` functions behind its own feature gate, so that naked functions can be stabilized. It turns out that supporting `target_feature` on naked functions is tricky on some targets, so we're splitting it out to not block stabilization of naked functions themselves. See the tracking issue for more information and workarounds.
Note that at the time of writing, the `target_features` attribute is ignored when generating code for naked functions.
r? ``@Amanieu``
Stabilize `asm_goto` feature gate
Stabilize `asm_goto` feature (tracked by #119364). The issue will remain open and be updated to track `asm_goto_with_outputs`.
Reference PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1693
# Stabilization Report
This feature adds a `label <block>` operand type to `asm!`. `<block>` must be a block expression with type unit or never. The address of the block is substituted and the assembly may jump to the block. When block completes the `asm!` block returns and continues execution.
The block starts a new safety context and unsafe operations within must have additional `unsafe`s; the effect of `unsafe` that surrounds `asm!` block is cancelled. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119364#issuecomment-2316037703 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131544.
It's currently forbidden to use `asm_goto` with output operands; that is still unstable under `asm_goto_with_outputs`.
Example:
```rust
unsafe {
asm!(
"jmp {}",
label {
println!("Jumped from asm!");
}
);
}
```
Tests:
- tests/ui/asm/x86_64/goto.rs
- tests/ui/asm/x86_64/goto-block-safe.stderr
- tests/ui/asm/x86_64/bad-options.rs
- tests/codegen/asm/goto.rs
I can't find any dedicated tests that actually exercises the stability
gating (via `-Z unstable-options`) of print requests, so here's a
dedicated one.
I coalesced `tests/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-print-check-cfg.rs`
into this test, because AFAICT that print request is not feature gated,
but only `-Z unstable-options`-gated just like other unstable print
requests.
Add `#[define_opaques]` attribute and require it for all type-alias-impl-trait sites that register a hidden type
Instead of relying on the signature of items to decide whether they are constraining an opaque type, the opaque types that the item constrains must be explicitly listed.
A previous version of this PR used an actual attribute, but had to keep the resolved `DefId`s in a side table.
Now we just lower to fields in the AST that have no surface syntax, instead a builtin attribute macro fills in those fields where applicable.
Note that for convenience referencing opaque types in associated types from associated methods on the same impl will not require an attribute. If that causes problems `#[defines()]` can be used to overwrite the default of searching for opaques in the signature.
One wart of this design is that closures and static items do not have generics. So since I stored the opaques in the generics of functions, consts and methods, I would need to add a custom field to closures and statics to track this information. During a T-types discussion we decided to just not do this for now.
fixes#131298
Rollup of 17 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #137827 (Add timestamp to unstable feature usage metrics)
- #138041 (bootstrap and compiletest: Use `size_of_val` from the prelude instead of imported)
- #138046 (trim channel value in `get_closest_merge_commit`)
- #138053 (Increase the max. custom try jobs requested to `20`)
- #138061 (triagebot: add a `compiler_leads` ad-hoc group)
- #138064 (Remove - from xtensa targets cpu names)
- #138075 (Use final path segment for diagnostic)
- #138078 (Reduce the noise of bootstrap changelog warnings in --dry-run mode)
- #138081 (Move `yield` expressions behind their own feature gate)
- #138090 (`librustdoc`: flatten nested ifs)
- #138092 (Re-add `DynSend` and `DynSync` impls for `TyCtxt`)
- #138094 (a small borrowck cleanup)
- #138098 (Stabilize feature `const_copy_from_slice`)
- #138103 (Git ignore citool's target directory)
- #138105 (Fix broken link to Miri intrinsics in documentation)
- #138108 (Mention me (WaffleLapkin) when changes to `rustc_codegen_ssa` occur)
- #138117 ([llvm/PassWrapper] use `size_t` when building arg strings)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
