Clean UI tests 4 of n
Cleaned up some tests that have `issue` in the title. I kept the commits to be one per "`issue`" cleanup/rename to make it easier to check. I can rebase to one commit once the changes are approved.
Related Issues:
#73494#133895
r? jieyouxu
Introduce and use specialized `//@ ignore-auxiliary` for test support files instead of using `//@ ignore-test`
### Summary
Add a semantically meaningful directive for ignoring test *auxiliary* files. This is for auxiliary files that *participate* in actual tests but should not be built by `compiletest` (i.e. these files are involved through `mod xxx;` or `include!()` or `#[path = "xxx"]`, etc.).
### Motivation
A specialized directive like `//@ ignore-auxiliary` makes it way easier to audit disabled tests via `//@ ignore-test`.
- These support files cannot use the canonical `auxiliary/` dir because they participate in module resolution or are included, or their relative paths can be important for test intention otherwise.
Follow-up to:
- #139705
- #139783
- #139740
See also discussions in:
- [#t-compiler > Directive name for non-test aux files?](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/131828-t-compiler/topic/Directive.20name.20for.20non-test.20aux.20files.3F/with/512773817)
- [#t-compiler > Handling disabled `//@ ignore-test` tests](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/131828-t-compiler/topic/Handling.20disabled.20.60.2F.2F.40.20ignore-test.60.20tests/with/512005974)
- [#t-compiler/meetings > [steering] 2025-04-11 Dealing with disabled tests](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bsteering.5D.202025-04-11.20Dealing.20with.20disabled.20tests/with/511717981)
### Remarks on remaining unconditionally disabled tests under `tests/`
After this PR, against commit 79a272c640, only **14** remaining test files are disabled through `//@ ignore-test`:
<details>
<summary>Remaining `//@ ignore-test` files under `tests/`</summary>
```
tests/debuginfo/drop-locations.rs
4://@ ignore-test (broken, see #128971)
tests/rustdoc/macro-document-private-duplicate.rs
1://@ ignore-test (fails spuriously, see issue #89228)
tests/rustdoc/inline_cross/assoc-const-equality.rs
3://@ ignore-test (FIXME: #125092)
tests/ui/match/issue-27021.rs
7://@ ignore-test (#54987)
tests/ui/match/issue-26996.rs
7://@ ignore-test (#54987)
tests/ui/issues/issue-49298.rs
9://@ ignore-test (#54987)
tests/ui/issues/issue-59756.rs
2://@ ignore-test (rustfix needs multiple suggestions)
tests/ui/precondition-checks/write.rs
5://@ ignore-test (unimplemented)
tests/ui/precondition-checks/read.rs
5://@ ignore-test (unimplemented)
tests/ui/precondition-checks/write_bytes.rs
5://@ ignore-test (unimplemented)
tests/ui/explicit-tail-calls/drop-order.rs
2://@ ignore-test: tail calls are not implemented in rustc_codegen_ssa yet, so this causes 🧊
tests/ui/panics/panic-short-backtrace-windows-x86_64.rs
3://@ ignore-test (#92000)
tests/ui/json/json-bom-plus-crlf-multifile-aux.rs
3://@ ignore-test Not a test. Used by other tests
tests/ui/traits/next-solver/object-soundness-requires-generalization.rs
2://@ ignore-test (see #114196)
```
</details>
Of these, most are either **unimplemented**, or **spurious**, or **known-broken**. The outstanding one is `tests/ui/json/json-bom-plus-crlf-multifile-aux.rs` which I did not want to touch in *this* PR -- that aux file has load-bearing BOM and carriage returns and byte offset matters. I think those test files that require special encoding / BOM probably are better off as `run-make` tests. See #139968 for that aux file.
### Review advice
- Best reviewed commit-by-commit.
- The directive name diverged from the most voted `//@ auxiliary` because I think that's easy to confuse with `//@ aux-{crate,dir}`.
r? compiler
Ignore zero-sized types in wasm future-compat warning
This commit fixes a false positive of the warning triggered for #138762 and the fix is to codify that zero-sized types are "safe" in both the old and new ABIs.
This commit fixes a false positive of the warning triggered for #138762
and the fix is to codify that zero-sized types are "safe" in both the
old and new ABIs.
Explicitly annotate edition for `unpretty=expanded` and `unpretty=hir` tests
These emit prelude imports which means they are always edition dependent and so running them with a different `--edition` will fail.
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.
UI tests: migrate remaining compile time `error-pattern`s to line annotations when possible
There's a number of cases in which `error-pattern` is still necessary even for compile time checking.
- It checks something that compiler writes directly into stderr as text, and not to the structured json output. This includes some stuff reported during compiler panics, and also diagnostics that happen very early, for example when parsing the command line.
- It checks something that exists only in the full rendered diagnostic test, but not in its structured components, for example code fragments or output of `-Ztrack-diagnostics`. (The latter can probably be converted to structured form though.)
This is continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139137.
r? `@jieyouxu`
Convert `tests/ui/lint/dead-code/self-assign.rs` to a known-bug test
I did a survey pass over `tests/`, and this test seems like the only candidate suitable for conversion into a known-bug test. (Other tests had varying degrees of other issues that known-bug would not be suitable.)
r? compiler
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````
Fix breakage when running compiletest with `--test-args=--edition=2015`
Compiletest has an `--edition` flag to change the default edition tests are run with. Unfortunately no test suite successfully executes when that flag is passed. If the edition is set to something greater than 2015 the breakage is expected, since the test suite currently supports only edition 2015 (Ferrous Systems will open an MCP about fixing that soonish). Surprisingly, the test suite is also broken if `--edition=2015` is passed to compiletest. This PR focuses on fixing the latter.
This PR fixes the two categories of failures happening when `--edition=2015` is passed:
* Some edition-specific tests set their edition through `//@ compile-flags` instead of `//@ edition`. Compiletest doesn't parse the compile flags, so it would see no `//@ edition` and add another `--edition` flag, leading to a rustc error.
* Compiletest would add the edition after `//@ compile-flags`, while some tests depend on flags passed to `//@ compile-flags` being the last flags in the rustc invocation.
Note that for the first category, I opted to manually go and replace all `//@ compile-flags` setting an edition with an explicit `//@ edition`. We could've changed compiletest to instead check whether an edition was set in `//@ compile-flags`, but I thought it was better to enforce a consistent way to set the edition in tests.
I also added the edition to the stamp, so that changing `--edition` results in tests being re-executed.
r? `@jieyouxu`
report call site of inlined scopes for large assignment lints
Addressed issue: #121672
Tracking issue: #83518
r? `@oli-obk`
I tried to follow your comment about what to do [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121672#issuecomment-1972783675). However, I'm totally unfamiliar with the code so far (this is my first contribution touching compiler code), so I apologize in advance if I did something stupid 😅
In particular, I'm not sure I use the _correct_ source scope to look for inline data, as there is a whole `IndexVec` of them. My changes definitely did something, as can be seen by the added ui test. However, the result is not as anticipated in the issue:
```
LL | let cell = std::cell::UnsafeCell::new(data);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ value moved from here
```
instead of
```
LL | let cell = std::cell::UnsafeCell::new(data);
| ^^^^ value moved from here
```
raising my suspicion that maybe I got the wrong source scope.
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
Emit `unused_attributes` for `#[inline]` on exported functions
I saw someone post a code sample that contained these two attributes, which immediately made me suspicious.
My suspicions were confirmed when I did a small test and checked the compiler source code to confirm that in these cases, `#[inline]` is indeed ignored (because you can't exactly `LocalCopy`an unmangled symbol since that would lead to duplicate symbols, and doing a mix of an unmangled `GloballyShared` and mangled `LocalCopy` instantiation is too complicated for our current instatiation mode logic, which I don't want to change right now).
So instead, emit the usual unused attribute lint with a message saying that the attribute is ignored in this position.
I think this is not 100% true, since I expect LLVM `inlinehint` to still be applied to such a function, but that's not why people use this attribute, they use it for the `LocalCopy` instantiation mode, where it doesn't work.
r? saethlin as the instantiation guy
Procedurally, I think this should be fine to merge without any lang involvement, as this only does a very minor extension to an existing lint.
add FCW to warn about wasm ABI transition
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122532 for context: the "C" ABI on wasm32-unk-unk will change. The goal of this lint is to warn about any function definition and calls whose behavior will be affected by the change. My understanding is the following:
- scalar arguments are fine
- including 128 bit types, they get passed as two `i64` arguments in both ABIs
- `repr(C)` structs (recursively) wrapping a single scalar argument are fine (unless they have extra padding due to over-alignment attributes)
- all return values are fine
`@bjorn3` `@alexcrichton` `@Manishearth` is that correct?
I am making this a "show up in future compat reports" lint to maximize the chances people become aware of this. OTOH this likely means warnings for most users of Diplomat so maybe we shouldn't do this?
IIUC, wasm-bindgen should be unaffected by this lint as they only pass scalar types as arguments.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138762
Transition plan blog post: https://github.com/rust-lang/blog.rust-lang.org/pull/1531
try-job: dist-various-2
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #135745 (Recognise new IPv6 non-global range from IETF RFC 9602)
- #137247 (cg_llvm: Reduce the visibility of types, modules and using declarations in `rustc_codegen_llvm`.)
- #138317 (privacy: Visit types and traits in impls in type privacy lints)
- #138581 (Abort in deadlock handler if we fail to get a query map)
- #138776 (coverage: Separate span-extraction from unexpansion)
- #138886 (Fix autofix for `self` and `self as …` in `unused_imports` lint)
- #138924 (Reduce `kw::Empty` usage, part 3)
- #138929 (Visitors track whether an assoc item is in a trait impl or an inherent impl)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
I saw someone post a code sample that contained these two attributes,
which immediately made me suspicious.
My suspicions were confirmed when I did a small test and checked the
compiler source code to confirm that in these cases, `#[inline]` is
indeed ignored (because you can't exactly `LocalCopy`an unmangled symbol
since that would lead to duplicate symbols, and doing a mix of an
unmangled `GloballyShared` and mangled `LocalCopy` instantiation is too
complicated for our current instatiation mode logic, which I don't want
to change right now).
So instead, emit the usual unused attribute lint with a message saying
that the attribute is ignored in this position.
I think this is not 100% true, since I expect LLVM `inlinehint` to still
be applied to such a function, but that's not why people use this
attribute, they use it for the `LocalCopy` instantiation mode, where it
doesn't work.
This fixes two problems with the autofixes for the `unused_imports`
lint:
- `use std::collections::{HashMap, self as coll};` would suggest, when
`HashMap` is unused, the incorrect `use std::collections::self as coll;`
which does not compile.
- `use std::borrow::{self, Cow};` would suggest, when `self` is unused,
`use std::borrow::{Cow};`, which contains unnecessary brackets.
