2229: Handle capturing a reference into a repr packed struct
RFC 1240 states that it is unsafe to capture references into a
packed-struct. This PR ensures that when a closure captures a precise
path, we aren't violating this safety constraint.
To acheive so we restrict the capture precision to the struct itself.
An interesting edge case where we decided to restrict precision:
```rust
struct Foo(String);
let foo: Foo;
let c = || {
println!("{}", foo.0);
let x = foo.0;
}
```
Given how closures get desugared today, foo.0 will be moved into the
closure, making the `println!`, safe. However this can be very subtle
and also will be unsafe if the closure gets inline.
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/33
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Allow calling *const methods on *mut values
This allows `*const` methods to be called on `*mut` values.
TODOs:
- [x] ~~Remove debug logs~~ Done.
- [x] ~~I haven't tested, but I think this currently won't work when the `self` value has type like `&&&&& *mut X` because I don't do any autoderefs when probing. To fix this the new code in `rustc_typeck::check::method::probe` needs to reuse `pick_method` somehow as I think that's the function that autoderefs.~~ This works, because autoderefs are done before calling `pick_core`, in `method_autoderef_steps`, called by `probe_op`.
- [x] ~~I should probably move the new `Pick` to `pick_autorefd_method`. If not, I should move it to its own function.~~ Done.
- [ ] ~~Test this with a `Pick` with `to_ptr = true` and `unsize = true`.~~ I think this case cannot happen, because we don't have any array methods with `*mut [X]` receiver. I should confirm that this is true and document this. I've placed two assertions about this.
- [x] ~~Maybe give `(Mutability, bool)` a name and fields~~ I now have a `to_const_ptr` field in `Pick`.
- [x] ~~Changes in `adjust_self_ty` is quite hacky. The problem is we can't deref a pointer, and even if we don't have an adjustment to get the address of a value, so to go from `*mut` to `*const` we need a special case.~~ There's still a special case for `to_const_ptr`, but I'm not sure if we can avoid this.
- [ ] Figure out how `reached_raw_pointer` stuff is used. I suspect only for error messages.
Fixes#80258
Update llvm-project submodule
Fixes#82833. Fixes#82859. Probably also `fixes` #83025. This also merges in the current upstream 12.x branch.
r? `@nagisa`
Rustdoc Json: Add tests for Reexports, and improve jsondocck
The two changes are orthognal, so you can land just one if you want, but the improved errors realy helped write the tests.
Notably does not have the case from #80664, but I want to have all the ajacent cases tested before starting work on that to ensure I dont break anything.
Improves #81359
cc ```@CraftSpider```
r? ```@jyn514```
```@rustbot``` modify labels: +A-testsuite +T-rustdoc +A-rustdoc-json
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #81309 (always eagerly eval consts in Relate)
- #82217 (Edition-specific preludes)
- #82807 (rustdoc: Remove redundant enableSearchInput function)
- #82924 (WASI: Switch to crt1-command.o to enable support for new-style commands)
- #82949 (Do not attempt to unlock envlock in child process after a fork.)
- #82955 (fix: wrong word)
- #82962 (Treat header as first paragraph for shortened markdown descriptions)
- #82976 (fix error message for copy(_nonoverlapping) overflow)
- #82977 (Rename `Option::get_or_default` to `get_or_insert_default`)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Do not attempt to unlock envlock in child process after a fork.
This implements the first two points from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64718#issuecomment-793030479
This is a breaking change for cases where the environment is accessed in a Command::pre_exec closure. Except for single-threaded programs these uses were not correct anyway since they aren't async-signal safe.
Note that we had a ui test that explicitly tried `env::set_var` in `pre_exec`. As expected it failed with these changes when I tested locally.
Edition-specific preludes
This changes `{std,core}::prelude` to export edition-specific preludes under `rust_2015`, `rust_2018` and `rust_2021`. (As suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51418#issuecomment-395630382.) For now they all just re-export `v1::*`, but this allows us to add things to the 2021edition prelude soon.
This also changes the compiler to make the automatically injected prelude import dependent on the selected edition.
cc `@rust-lang/libs` `@djc`
Implement RFC 2945: "C-unwind" ABI
## Implement RFC 2945: "C-unwind" ABI
This branch implements [RFC 2945]. The tracking issue for this RFC is #74990.
The feature gate for the issue is `#![feature(c_unwind)]`.
This RFC was created as part of the ffi-unwind project group tracked at rust-lang/lang-team#19.
### Changes
Further details will be provided in commit messages, but a high-level overview
of the changes follows:
* A boolean `unwind` payload is added to the `C`, `System`, `Stdcall`,
and `Thiscall` variants, marking whether unwinding across FFI boundaries is
acceptable. The cases where each of these variants' `unwind` member is true
correspond with the `C-unwind`, `system-unwind`, `stdcall-unwind`, and
`thiscall-unwind` ABI strings introduced in RFC 2945 [3].
* This commit adds a `c_unwind` feature gate for the new ABI strings.
Tests for this feature gate are included in `src/test/ui/c-unwind/`, which
ensure that this feature gate works correctly for each of the new ABIs.
A new language features entry in the unstable book is added as well.
* We adjust the `rustc_middle::ty::layout::fn_can_unwind` function,
used to compute whether or not a `FnAbi` object represents a function that
should be able to unwind when `panic=unwind` is in use.
* Changes are also made to
`rustc_mir_build::build::should_abort_on_panic` so that the function ABI is
used to determind whether it should abort, assuming that the `panic=unwind`
strategy is being used, and no explicit unwind attribute was provided.
[RFC 2945]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2945-c-unwind-abi.md
Remove the -Zinsert-sideeffect
This removes all of the code we had in place to work-around LLVM's
handling of forward progress. From this removal excluded is a workaround
where we'd insert a `sideeffect` into clearly infinite loops such as
`loop {}`. This code remains conditionally effective when the LLVM
version is earlier than 12.0, which fixed the forward progress related
miscompilations at their root.
This removes all of the code we had in place to work-around LLVM's
handling of forward progress. From this removal excluded is a workaround
where we'd insert a `sideeffect` into clearly infinite loops such as
`loop {}`. This code remains conditionally effective when the LLVM
version is earlier than 12.0, which fixed the forward progress related
miscompilations at their root.
Store HIR attributes in a side table
Same idea as #72015 but for attributes.
The objective is to reduce incr-comp invalidations due to modified attributes.
Notably, those due to modified doc comments.
Implementation:
- collect attributes during AST->HIR lowering, in `LocalDefId -> ItemLocalId -> &[Attributes]` nested tables;
- access the attributes through a `hir_owner_attrs` query;
- local refactorings to use this access;
- remove `attrs` from HIR data structures one-by-one.
Change in behaviour:
- the HIR visitor traverses all attributes at once instead of parent-by-parent;
- attribute arrays are sometimes duplicated: for statements and variant constructors;
- as a consequence, attributes are marked as used after unused-attribute lint emission to avoid duplicate lints.
~~Current bug: the lint level is not correctly applied in `std::backtrace_rs`, triggering an unused attribute warning on `#![no_std]`. I welcome suggestions.~~
RFC 1240 states that it is unsafe to capture references into a
packed-struct. This PR ensures that when a closure captures a precise
path, we aren't violating this safety constraint.
To acheive so we restrict the capture precision to the struct itself.
An interesting edge case:
```rust
struct Foo(String);
let foo: Foo;
let c = || {
println!("{}", foo.0);
let x = foo.0;
}
```
Given how closures get desugared today, foo.0 will be moved into the
closure, making the `println!`, safe. However this can be very subtle
and also will be unsafe if the closure gets inline.
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/33
Stabilize `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint
This makes it possible to override the level of the `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn`, as proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71668#issuecomment-729770896.
Tracking issue: #71668
r? ```@nikomatsakis``` cc ```@SimonSapin``` ```@RalfJung```
# Stabilization report
This is a stabilization report for `#![feature(unsafe_block_in_unsafe_fn)]`.
## Summary
Currently, the body of unsafe functions is an unsafe block, i.e. you can perform unsafe operations inside.
The `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint, stabilized here, can be used to change this behavior, so performing unsafe operations in unsafe functions requires an unsafe block.
For now, the lint is allow-by-default, which means that this PR does not change anything without overriding the lint level.
For more information, see [RFC 2585](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2585-unsafe-block-in-unsafe-fn.md)
### Example
```rust
// An `unsafe fn` for demonstration purposes.
// Calling this is an unsafe operation.
unsafe fn unsf() {}
// #[allow(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)] by default,
// the behavior of `unsafe fn` is unchanged
unsafe fn allowed() {
// Here, no `unsafe` block is needed to
// perform unsafe operations...
unsf();
// ...and any `unsafe` block is considered
// unused and is warned on by the compiler.
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[warn(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn warned() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause the compiler to emit a warning.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn denied() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause a compilation error.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
```
This is a breaking change for cases where the environment is
accessed in a Command::pre_exec closure. Except for
single-threaded programs these uses were not correct
anyway since they aren't async-signal safe.
### Integration Tests
This commit introduces some new fixtures to the `run-make-fulldeps`
test suite.
* c-unwind-abi-catch-panic: Exercise unwinding a panic. This
catches a panic across an FFI boundary and downcasts it into
an integer.
* c-unwind-abi-catch-lib-panic: This is similar to the previous
`*catch-panic` test, however in this case the Rust code that
panics resides in a separate crate.
### Add `rust_eh_personality` to `#[no_std]` alloc tests
This commit addresses some test failures that now occur in the
following two tests:
* no_std-alloc-error-handler-custom.rs
* no_std-alloc-error-handler-default.rs
Each test now defines a `rust_eh_personality` extern function, in
the same manner as shown in the "Writing an executable without
stdlib" section of the `lang_items` documentation here:
https://doc.rust-lang.org/unstable-book/language-features/lang-items.html#writing-an-executable-without-stdlib
Without this change, these tests would fail to compile due to a
linking error explaining that there was an "undefined reference
to `rust_eh_personality'."
### Updated hash
* update 32-bit hash in `impl1` test
### Panics
This commit uses `panic!` macro invocations that return a string,
rather than using an integer as a panic payload.
Doing so avoids the following warnings that were observed during
rollup for the `*-msvc-1` targets:
```
warning: panic message is not a string literal
--> panic.rs:10:16
|
10 | panic!(x); // That is too big!
| ^
|
= note: `#[warn(non_fmt_panic)]` on by default
= note: this is no longer accepted in Rust 2021
help: add a "{}" format string to Display the message
|
10 | panic!("{}", x); // That is too big!
| ^^^^^
help: or use std::panic::panic_any instead
|
10 | std::panic::panic_any(x); // That is too big!
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
warning: 1 warning emitted
```
See: https://github.com/rust-lang-ci/rust/runs/1992118428
As these errors imply, panicking without a format string will be
disallowed in Rust 2021, per #78500.
### Changes
This commit implements unwind ABI's, specified in RFC 2945.
We adjust the `rustc_middle::ty::layout::fn_can_unwind` function,
used to compute whether or not a `FnAbi` object represents a
function that should be able to unwind when `panic=unwind` is in
use.
Changes are also made to
`rustc_mir_build::build::should_abort_on_panic` so that the
function ABI is used to determind whether it should abort, assuming
that the `panic=unwind` strategy is being used, and no explicit
unwind attribute was provided.
### Tests
Unit tests, checking that the behavior is correct for `C-unwind`,
`stdcall-unwind`, `system-unwind`, and `thiscall-unwind`, are
included. These alternative `unwind` ABI strings are specified in
RFC 2945, in the "_Other `unwind` ABI strings_" section.
Additionally, a test case is included to assert that the LLVM IR
generated for an external function defined with the `C-unwind` ABI
will be appropriately labeled with the `nounwind` LLVM attribute
when the `panic=abort` compilation flag is used.
### Ignore Directives
This commit uses `ignore-*` directives in two of our `*-unwind` ABI
test cases.
Specifically, the `stdcall-unwind` and `thiscall-unwind` test cases
ignore architectures that do not support `stdcall` and `thiscall`,
respectively.
These directives are cribbed from
`src/test/ui/c-variadic/variadic-ffi-1.rs` for `stdcall`, and
`src/test/ui/extern/extern-thiscall.rs` for `thiscall`.
### Overview
This commit begins the implementation work for RFC 2945. For more
information, see the rendered RFC [1] and tracking issue [2].
A boolean `unwind` payload is added to the `C`, `System`, `Stdcall`,
and `Thiscall` variants, marking whether unwinding across FFI
boundaries is acceptable. The cases where each of these variants'
`unwind` member is true correspond with the `C-unwind`,
`system-unwind`, `stdcall-unwind`, and `thiscall-unwind` ABI strings
introduced in RFC 2945 [3].
### Feature Gate and Unstable Book
This commit adds a `c_unwind` feature gate for the new ABI strings.
Tests for this feature gate are included in `src/test/ui/c-unwind/`,
which ensure that this feature gate works correctly for each of the
new ABIs.
A new language features entry in the unstable book is added as well.
### Further Work To Be Done
This commit does not proceed to implement the new unwinding ABIs,
and is intentionally scoped specifically to *defining* the ABIs and
their feature flag.
### One Note on Test Churn
This will lead to some test churn, in re-blessing hash tests, as the
deleted comment in `src/librustc_target/spec/abi.rs` mentioned,
because we can no longer guarantee the ordering of the `Abi`
variants.
While this is a downside, this decision was made bearing in mind
that RFC 2945 states the following, in the "Other `unwind` Strings"
section [3]:
> More unwind variants of existing ABI strings may be introduced,
> with the same semantics, without an additional RFC.
Adding a new variant for each of these cases, rather than specifying
a payload for a given ABI, would quickly become untenable, and make
working with the `Abi` enum prone to mistakes.
This approach encodes the unwinding information *into* a given ABI,
to account for the future possibility of other `-unwind` ABI
strings.
### Ignore Directives
`ignore-*` directives are used in two of our `*-unwind` ABI test
cases.
Specifically, the `stdcall-unwind` and `thiscall-unwind` test cases
ignore architectures that do not support `stdcall` and
`thiscall`, respectively.
These directives are cribbed from
`src/test/ui/c-variadic/variadic-ffi-1.rs` for `stdcall`, and
`src/test/ui/extern/extern-thiscall.rs` for `thiscall`.
This would otherwise fail on some targets, see:
fcf697f902
### Footnotes
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2945-c-unwind-abi.md
[2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74990
[3]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2945-c-unwind-abi.md#other-unwind-abi-strings
or-patterns: disallow in `let` bindings
~~Blocked on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81869~~
Disallows top-level or-patterns before type ascription. We want to reserve this syntactic space for possible future generalized type ascription.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
diagnostics: Be clear about "crate root" and `::foo` paths in resolve diagnostics
Various changes to make sure the diagnostics are clear about the differences in `::foo` paths across editions:
- `::foo` will say "crate root" in 2015 and "list of imported crates" in 2018
- `crate::` will never reference imported crates in 2018
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82876
Disable destination propagation on all mir-opt-levels
The new `// compile-flags: -Zunsound-mir-opts` are inserted without an extra newline to avoid introducing a large mir-opt diff.
Implement built-in attribute macro `#[cfg_eval]` + some refactoring
This PR implements a built-in attribute macro `#[cfg_eval]` as it was suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79078 to avoid `#[derive()]` without arguments being abused as a way to configure input for other attributes.
The macro is used for eagerly expanding all `#[cfg]` and `#[cfg_attr]` attributes in its input ("fully configuring" the input).
The effect is identical to effect of `#[derive(Foo, Bar)]` which also fully configures its input before passing it to macros `Foo` and `Bar`, but unlike `#[derive]` `#[cfg_eval]` can be applied to any syntax nodes supporting macro attributes, not only certain items.
`cfg_eval` was the first name suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79078, but other alternatives are also possible, e.g. `cfg_expand`.
```rust
#[cfg_eval]
#[my_attr] // Receives `struct S {}` as input, the field is configured away by `#[cfg_eval]`
struct S {
#[cfg(FALSE)]
field: u8,
}
```
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82679
expand: Refactor module loading
This is an accompanying PR to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/82399, but they can be landed independently.
See individual commits for more details.
Anyone should be able to review this equally well because all people actually familiar with this code left the project.
