bootstrap: Don't apply -Ztls-model=initial-exec to deps of proc-macros
Fixes#134863
1. Checks if a crate name is in a static list before applying the flag
2. Adds a tidy check that gathers transitive deps of proc macros and ensures the list is up to date
cc `@bjorn3` - the issue specifies `rustc_fluent_macro` but I assume this applies to all proc macro crates.
compiletest: Only pass the post-colon value to `parse_normalize_rule`
Addresses one of the FIXMEs noted in #134759.
I started working on the other FIXME, but it became complex enough that I wanted to split it off from this PR.
r? jieyouxu
Migrate `libs-through-symlink` to rmake.rs
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121876.
This PR migrates `tests/run-make/libs-through-symlink/` to use rmake.rs.
- Regression test for #13890.
- Original fix PR is #13903.
- Document test intent, backlink to #13890 and fix PR #13903.
- Fix the test logic: the `Makefile` version seems to not actually be exercising the "library search traverses symlink" logic, because the actual symlinked-to-library is present under the `$(TMPDIR)` directory tree when `bar.rs` is compiled, because the `$(RUSTC)` invocation has an implicit `-L $(TMPDIR)`. The symlink itself was actually broken, i.e. it should've been `ln -nsf $(TMPDIR)/outdir/$(NAME) $(TMPDIR)` but it used `ln -nsf outdir/$(NAME) $(TMPDIR)`. The rmake.rs version now explicitly separates the two directory trees and sets the CWD of the `bar.rs` rustc invocation so that the actual library is *not* present under its CWD tree.
I.e. it is now
```
$test_output/ # rustc foo.rs -o actual_lib_dir/libfoo.rlib
actual_lib_dir/
libfoo.rlib
symlink_lib_dir/ # CWD set; rustc -L . bar.rs
libfoo.rlib --> $test_output/actual_lib_dir/libfoo.rlib
```
Partially supersedes #129011.
This PR is co-authored with `@Oneirical.`
r? compiler
- The Makefile version *never* ran because of Makefile syntax confusion.
- The test would've always failed because precompiled std is not built
with `-Z cf-protection=branch`, but linkers require all input object
files to indicate IBT support in order to enable IBT for the
executable, which is not the case for std.
- Thus, the test input file is instead changed to a `no_std` + `no_core`
program.
Co-authored-by: Jerry Wang <jerrylwang123@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Oneirical <manchot@videotron.ca>
- Document test intent, backlink to #13890 and fix PR #13903.
- Fix the test logic: the `Makefile` version seems to not actually be
exercising the "library search traverses symlink" logic, because the
actual symlinked-to-library is present under the directory tree when
`bar.rs` is compiled, because the `$(RUSTC)` invocation has an
implicit `-L $(TMPDIR)`. The symlink itself was actually broken, i.e.
it should've been `ln -nsf $(TMPDIR)/outdir/$(NAME) $(TMPDIR)` but it
used `ln -nsf outdir/$(NAME) $(TMPDIR)`.
Co-authored-by: Oneirical <manchot@videotron.ca>
The old FIXME implies that we don't support escaped newlines, but in fact it
was added in the same patch that added support for escaped newlines.
The new FIXME makes it clear that we do currently support this, and that the
FIXME is for doing so in a less ad-hoc way.
Add `--no-capture`/`--nocapture` as bootstrap arguments
I often try `x test ... --nocapture` => 'unknown argument' => `x test ... -- --nocapture`. As we forward several other compiletest flags, let's recognise this one in bootstrap as well.
compiletest: Remove empty 'expected' files when blessing
Fixes#134793Fixes#134196
This also refactors `compare_output` to return an enum; returning a usize was done for convenience but is misleading
Migrate `incr-add-rust-src-component` to rmake
This PR partially supersedes #128562, and ports the Makefile-based `tests/run-make/incr-add-rust-src-component` to use rmake.rs infra.
Part of #121876.
This run-make test is a regression test for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70924. It (tries to) checks that if we add the `rust-src` component in between two incremental compiles, that the compiler doesn't ICE on the second invocation.
- Original issue:https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70924
- Fix PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/72767
- PR adding this regression test: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/72952
However, the Makefile version of this used `$SYSROOT/lib/rustlib/src/rust/src/libstd/lib.rs`, but that actually got moved around and reorganized over the years. As of Dec 2024, the `rust-src` component is more like (specific for our purposes):
```
$SYSROOT/lib/rustlib/src/rust/
library/std/src/lib.rs
src/
```
However, this run-make test is ancient and it exercises incr-comp system logic. I'm not sure if this test would actually catch the original regression.
This PR was co-authored with `@Oneirical.`
r? incremental
try-job: i686-msvc
try-job: x86_64-mingw-1
try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: aarch64-apple
compiletest: Support `forbid-output` in UI tests
The `forbid-output` directive is currently only run in incremental tests (although no incremental tests use it). There are some UI tests 'using' it, but it's doing nothing 😄 Let's fix this
Will also PR the dev guide to note this.
dev-guide PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/2171
Update cargo
6 commits in 652623b779c88fe44afede28bf7f1c9c07812511..c86f4b3a1b153218e6e50861214b0b4b4e695f23
2024-12-20 15:44:42 +0000 to 2024-12-24 17:49:48 +0000
- fix(package): check dirtiness of path fields in manifest (rust-lang/cargo#14966)
- test: make path arguments more generic and flexible (rust-lang/cargo#14979)
- Moved manifest metadata tracking from fingerprint to dep info (rust-lang/cargo#14973)
- fix: assure possibly blocking non-files (like FIFOs) won't be picked up for publishing. (rust-lang/cargo#14977)
- simplify SourceID Hash (rust-lang/cargo#14800)
- upgrade `gix` to the latest release 0.69. (rust-lang/cargo#14975)
Begin to implement type system layer of unsafe binders
Mostly TODOs, but there's a lot of match arms that are basically just noops so I wanted to split these out before I put up the MIR lowering/projection part of this logic.
r? oli-obk
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130516
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #134363 (Use `#[derive(Default)]` instead of manual `impl` when possible)
- #134517 (Add tests for coverage attribute on trait functions)
- #134528 (opt-dist: propagate channel info to bootstrap)
- #134669 (Document the `--dev` flag for `src/ci/docker/run.sh`)
- #134680 (Clean up a few rmake tests )
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
opt-dist: propagate channel info to bootstrap
Fixes#133503.
Previously, `tests/ui/bootstrap/rustc_bootstap.rs` [sic] failed during [beta bump](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133447#issuecomment-2501298794) in opt-dist tests. This is because:
- `opt-dist` tried to run `./x test` against beta-channel dist `rustc` through `bootstrap`.
- The dist build produced during the beta bump produces a `rustc` which correctly thinks that it is a beta compiler based on `src/ci/channel` info.
- `opt-dist` tries to run `./x test` on the beta `rustc` from the dist build, but without specifying channel through a synthetic `config.toml`, so `bootstrap` tells `compiletest` that we're on the `nightly` channel (by default).
- Now there's a channel mismatch: `compiletest` believes the `rustc` under test is a *nightly* rustc, but the `rustc` under test actually considers itself a *beta* rustc. This means that `//@ only-nightly` will be satisfied yet the test will fail as the *beta* rustc is not a *nightly* rustc.
This PR:
- Fixes the test failure during beta bump (i.e. #133503) by having `opt-dist` faithfully report the channel of the dist `rustc` being tested (i.e. "beta" in a beta bump PR). This will properly make the test be ignored during beta bump as the `rustc` under test is not a *nightly* rustc.
- Fixes the test name `rustc_bootstap.rs` -> `rustc_bootstrap.rs`. No more stapping.
- Slightly adjusts the doc comment in the test to make it more clear.
I ran a try-job against the beta branch (explicitly running the opt-dist tests by modifying the job definition) with these changes in #134131, and it appears that the try-job was [successful](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134131#issuecomment-2555492215). The two commits in this PR are cherry-picked from #134131, with the test commit slightly modified (to also adjust the test comments).
r? `@Kobzol` (or compiler or bootstrap or infra I guess?)
The Makefile version seems to contain a bug. Over the years, the
directory structure of the `rust-src` component changed as the source
tree directory structure changed. `libstd` is no longer a thing directly
under `root/lib/rustlib/src/rust/src/`, it is moved to
`root/lib/rustlib/src/rust/library/std`.
Co-authored-by: Oneirical <manchot@videotron.ca>
Revert stabilization of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute
Due to a process mixup, the PR to stabilize the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute (#130766) was merged while there are still outstanding concerns. The default action in that situation is to revert, and the feature is not sufficiently urgent or uncontroversial to justify special treatment, so this PR reverts that stabilization.
---
- A key point that came up in offline discussions is that unlike most user-facing features, this one never had a proper RFC, so parts of the normal stabilization process that implicitly rely on an RFC break down in this case.
- As the implementor and de-facto owner of the feature in its current form, I would like to think that I made good choices in designing and implementing it, but I don't feel comfortable proceeding to stabilization without further scrutiny.
- There hasn't been a clear opportunity for T-compiler to weigh in or express concerns prior to stabilization.
- The stabilization PR cites a T-lang FCP that occurred in the tracking issue, but due to the messy design and implementation history (and lack of a clear RFC), it's unclear what that FCP approval actually represents in this case.
- At the very least, we should not proceed without a clear statement from T-lang or the relevant members about the team's stance on this feature, especially in light of the other concerns listed here.
- The existing user-facing documentation doesn't clearly reflect which parts of the feature are stable commitments, and which parts are subject to change. And there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus anywhere about where that line is actually drawn, or whether the chosen boundary is acceptable to the relevant teams and individuals.
- For example, the [stabilization report comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84605#issuecomment-2166514660) mentions that some aspects are subject to change, but that text isn't consistent with my earlier comments, and there doesn't appear to have been any explicit discussion or approval process.
- [The current reference text](4dfaa4f/src/attributes/coverage-instrumentation.md) doesn't mention this distinction at all, and instead simply describes the current implementation behaviour.
- When the implementation was changed to its current form, the associated user-facing error messages were not updated, so they still refer to the attribute only being allowed on functions and closures.
- On its own, this might have been reasonable to fix-forward in the absence of other concerns, but the fact that it never came up earlier highlights the breakdown in process that has occurred here.
---
Apologies to everyone who was excited for this stabilization to land, but unfortunately it simply isn't ready yet.
