Don't panic when failing to initialize incremental directory.
This removes a panic when rustc fails to initialize the incremental directory. This can commonly happen on various filesystems that don't support locking (often various network filesystems). Panics can be confusing and scary, and there are already plenty of issues reporting this.
This has been panicking since 1.22 due to I think #44502 which was a major rework of how things work. Previously, things were simpler and the [`load_dep_graph`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.21.0/src/librustc_incremental/persist/load.rs#L43-L65) function would emit an error and then continue on without panicking. With 1.22, [`load_dep_graph`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.22.0/src/librustc_incremental/persist/load.rs#L44) was changed so that it assumes it can load the data without errors. Today, the problem is that it calls [`prepare_session_directory`](fbf1b1a719/compiler/rustc_interface/src/passes.rs (L175-L179)) and then immediately calls `garbage_collect_session_directories` which will panic since the session is `IncrCompSession::NotInitialized`.
The solution here is to have `prepare_session_directory` return an error that must be handled so that compilation stops if it fails.
Some other options:
* Ignore directory lock failures.
* Print a warning on directory lock failure, but otherwise continue with incremental enabled.
* Print a warning on directory lock failure, and disable incremental.
* Provide a different locking mechanism.
Cargo ignores lock errors if locking is not supported, so that would be a precedent for the first option. These options would require quite a bit more changes, but I'm happy to entertain any of them, as I think they all have valid justifications.
There is more discussion on the many issues where this is reported: #49773, #59224, #66513, #76251. I'm not sure if this can be considered closing any of those, though, since I think there is some value in discussing if there is a way to avoid the error altogether. But I think it would make sense to at least close all but one to consolidate them.
As described in issue #85708, we currently do not properly decode
`SyntaxContext::root()` and `ExpnId::root()` from foreign crates. As a
result, when we decode a span from a foreign crate with
`SyntaxContext::root()`, we end up up considering it to have the edition
of the *current* crate, instead of the foreign crate where it was
originally created.
A full fix for this issue will be a fairly significant undertaking.
Fortunately, it's possible to implement a partial fix, which gives us
the correct edition-dependent behavior for `:pat` matchers when the
macro is loaded from another crate. Since we have the edition of the
macro's defining crate available, we can 'recover' from seeing a
`SyntaxContext::root()` and use the edition of the macro's defining
crate.
Any solution to issue #85708 must reproduce the behavior of this
targeted fix - properly preserving a foreign `SyntaxContext::root()`
means (among other things) preserving its edition, which by definition
is the edition of the foreign crate itself. Therefore, this fix moves us
closer to the correct overall solution, and does not expose any new
incorrect behavior to macros.
A bit more polish on const eval errors
This PR adds a bit more polish to the const eval errors:
- a slight improvement to the PME messages from #85633: I mentioned there that the erroneous item's paths were dependent on the environment, and could be displayed fully qualified or not. This can obscure the items when they come from a dependency. This PR uses the pretty-printing code ensuring the items' paths are not trimmed.
- whenever there are generics involved in an item where const evaluation errors out, the error message now displays the instance and its const arguments, so that we can see which instantiated item and compile-time values lead to the error.
So we get this slight improvement for our beloved `stdarch` example, on nightly:
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
8 | assert!(IMM >= MIN && IMM <= MAX, "IMM value not in expected range");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the evaluated program panicked at 'IMM value not in expected range', /rustc/9111b8ae9793f18179a1336417618fc07a9cac85/library/core/src/../../stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
```
to this PR's:
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of `core::core_arch::macros::ValidateConstImm::<51_i32, 0_i32, 15_i32>::VALID` failed
--> ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
8 | assert!(IMM >= MIN && IMM <= MAX, "IMM value not in expected range");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the evaluated program panicked at 'IMM value not in expected range', ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
```
with this PR.
Of course this is an idea from Oli, so maybe r? `@oli-obk` if they have the time.
This commit updates the compiler's handling of the `#[target_feature]`
attribute when applied to functions on WebAssembly-based targets. The
compiler in general requires that any functions with `#[target_feature]`
are marked as `unsafe` as well, but this commit relaxes the restriction
for WebAssembly targets where the attribute can be applied to safe
functions as well.
The reason this is done is that the motivation for this feature of the
compiler is not applicable for WebAssembly targets. In general the
`#[target_feature]` attribute is used to enhance target CPU features
enabled beyond the basic level for the rest of the compilation. If done
improperly this means that your program could execute an instruction
that the CPU you happen to be running on does not understand. This is
considered undefined behavior where it is unknown what will happen (e.g.
it's not a deterministic `SIGILL`).
For WebAssembly, however, the target is different. It is not possible
for a running WebAssembly program to execute an instruction that the
engine does not understand. If this were the case then the program would
not have validated in the first place and would not run at all. Even if
this were allowed in some hypothetical future where engines have some
form of runtime feature detection (which they do not right now) any
implementation of such a feature would generate a trap if a module
attempts to execute an instruction the module does not understand. This
deterministic trap behavior would still not fall into the category of
undefined behavior because the trap is deterministic.
For these reasons the `#[target_feature]` attribute is now allowed on
safe functions, but only for WebAssembly targets. This notably enables
the wasm-SIMD intrinsics proposed for stabilization in #74372 to be
marked as safe generally instead of today where they're all `unsafe` due
to the historical implementation of `#[target_feature]` in the compiler.
Fix incorrect suggestions for E0605
Fixes#84598. Here is a simplified version of the problem presented in issue #84598:
```Rust
#![allow(unused_variables)]
#![allow(dead_code)]
trait T { fn t(&self) -> i32; }
unsafe fn foo(t: *mut dyn T) {
(t as &dyn T).t();
}
fn main() {}
```
The current output is:
```
error[E0605]: non-primitive cast: `*mut (dyn T + 'static)` as `&dyn T`
--> src/main.rs:7:5
|
7 | (t as &dyn T).t();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ invalid cast
|
help: borrow the value for the cast to be valid
|
7 | (&t as &dyn T).t();
| ^
```
This is incorrect, though: The cast will _not_ be valid when writing `&t` instead of `t`:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `*mut (dyn T + 'static): T` is not satisfied
--> t4.rs:7:6
|
7 | (&t as &dyn T).t();
| ^^ the trait `T` is not implemented for `*mut (dyn T + 'static)`
|
= note: required for the cast to the object type `dyn T`
```
The correct suggestion is `&*t`, which I have implemented in this pull request. Of course, this suggestion will always require an unsafe block, but arguably, that's what the user really wants if they're trying to cast a pointer to a reference.
In any case, claiming that the cast will be valid after implementing the suggestion is overly optimistic, as the coercion logic doesn't seem to resolve all nested obligations, i.e. the cast may still be invalid after implementing the suggestion. I have therefore rephrased the suggestion slightly ("consider borrowing the value" instead of "borrow the value for the cast to be valid").
Additionally, I have fixed another incorrect suggestion not mentioned in #84598, which relates to casting immutable references to mutable ones:
```rust
fn main() {
let mut x = 0;
let m = &x as &mut i32;
}
```
currently leads to
```
error[E0605]: non-primitive cast: `&i32` as `&mut i32`
--> t5.rs:3:13
|
3 | let m = &x as &mut i32;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ invalid cast
|
help: borrow the value for the cast to be valid
|
3 | let m = &mut &x as &mut i32;
| ^^^^
```
which is obviously incorrect:
```
error[E0596]: cannot borrow data in a `&` reference as mutable
--> t5.rs:3:13
|
3 | let m = &mut &x as &mut i32;
| ^^^^^^^ cannot borrow as mutable
```
I've changed the suggestion to a note explaining the problem:
```
error[E0605]: non-primitive cast: `&i32` as `&mut i32`
--> t5.rs:3:13
|
3 | let m = &x as &mut i32;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ invalid cast
|
note: this reference is immutable
--> t5.rs:3:13
|
3 | let m = &x as &mut i32;
| ^^
note: trying to cast to a mutable reference type
--> t5.rs:3:19
|
3 | let m = &x as &mut i32;
| ^^^^^^^^
```
In this example, it would have been even nicer to suggest replacing `&x` with `&mut x`, but this would be much more complex because we would have to take apart the expression to be cast (currently, we only look at its type), and `&x` could be stored in a variable, where such a suggestion would not even be directly applicable:
```rust
fn main() {
let mut x = 0;
let r = &x;
let m = r as &mut i32;
}
```
My solution covers this case, too.
Fix trait methods' toggle
A `<details>` tag wasn't closed on trait methods, which created broken DOM. I also used this occasion to only generate the toggle in case there is documentation on the method.
r? `@jsha`
readd capture disjoint fields gate
This readds a feature gate guard that was added in PR #83521. (Basically, there were unintended consequences to the code exposed by removing the feature gate guard.)
The root bug still remains to be resolved, as discussed in issue #85561. This is just a band-aid suitable for a beta backport.
Cc issue #85435
Note that the latter issue is unfixed until we backport this (or another fix) to 1.53 beta
stabilize member constraints
Stabilizes the use of "member constraints" in solving `impl Trait` bindings. This is a step towards stabilizing a "MVP" of "named impl Trait".
# Member constraint stabilization report
| Info | |
| --- | --- |
| Tracking issue | [rust-lang/rust#61997](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61997) |
| Implementation history | [rust-lang/rust#61775] |
| rustc-dev-guide coverage | [link](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/borrow_check/region_inference/member_constraints.html) |
| Complications | [rust-lang/rust#61773] |
[rust-lang/rust#61775]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61775
[rust-lang/rust#61773]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61773
## Background
Member constraints are an extension to our region solver that was introduced to make async fn region solving tractable. There are used in situations like the following:
```rust
fn foo<'a, 'b>(...) -> impl Trait<'a, 'b> { .. }
```
The problem here is that every region R in the hidden type must be equal to *either* `'a` *or* `'b` (or `'static`). This cannot be expressed simply via 'outlives constriants' like `R: 'a`. Therefore, we introduce a 'member constraint' `R member of ['a, 'b]`.
These constraints were introduced in [rust-lang/rust#61775]. At the time, we kept them feature gated and used them only for `impl Trait` return types that are derived from `async fn`. The intention, however, was always to support them in other contexts once we had time to gain more experience with them.
**In the time since their introduction, we have encountered no surprises or bugs due to these member constraints.** They are tested extensively as part of every async function that involves multiple unrelated lifetimes in its arguments.
## Tests
The behavior of member constraints is covered by the following tests:
* [`src/test/ui/async-await/multiple-lifetimes`](20e032e650/src/test/ui/async-await/multiple-lifetimes) -- tests using the async await, which are mostly already stabilized
* [`src/test/ui/impl-trait/multiple-lifetimes.rs`](20e032e650/src/test/ui/impl-trait/multiple-lifetimes.rs)
* [`src/test/ui/impl-trait/multiple-lifetimes/ordinary-bounds-unsuited.rs`](20e032e650/src/test/ui/impl-trait/multiple-lifetimes/ordinary-bounds-unsuited.rs)
* [`src/test/ui/async-await/multiple-lifetimes/ret-impl-trait-fg.rs`](20e032e650/src/test/ui/async-await/multiple-lifetimes/ret-impl-trait-fg.rs)
* [`src/test/ui/async-await/multiple-lifetimes/ret-impl-trait-one.rs`](20e032e650/src/test/ui/async-await/multiple-lifetimes/ret-impl-trait-one.rs)
These tests cover a number of scenarios:
* `-> implTrait<'a, 'b>` with unrelated lifetimes `'a` and `'b`, as described above
* `async fn` that returns an `impl Trait` like the previous case, which desugars to a kind of "nested" impl trait like `impl Future<Output = impl Trait<'a, 'b>>`
## Potential concerns
There is a potential interaction with `impl Trait` on local variables, described in [rust-lang/rust#61773]. The challenge is that if you have a program like:
```rust=
trait Foo<'_> { }
impl Foo<'_> for &u32 { }
fn bar() {
let x: impl Foo<'_> = &44; // let's call the region variable for `'_` `'1`
}
```
then we would wind up with `'0 member of ['1, 'static]`, where `'0` is the region variable in the hidden type (`&'0 u32`) and `'1` is the region variable in the bounds `Foo<'1>`. This is tricky because both `'0` and `'1` are being inferred -- so making them equal may have other repercussions.
That said, `impl Trait` in bindings are not stable, and the implementation is pretty far from stabilization. Moreover, the difficulty highlighted here is not due to the presence of member constraints -- it's inherent to the design of the language. In other words, stabilizing member constraints does not actually cause us to accept anything that would make this problem any harder.
So I don't see this as a blocker to stabilization of member constraints; it is potentially a blocker to stablization of `impl trait` in let bindings.
E0599 suggestions and elision of generic argument if no canditate is found
fixes#81576
changes: In error E0599 (method not found) generic argument are eluded if the method was not found anywhere. If the method was found in another inherent implementation suggest that it was found elsewhere.
Example
```rust
struct Wrapper<T>(T);
struct Wrapper2<T> {
x: T,
}
impl Wrapper2<i8> {
fn method(&self) {}
}
fn main() {
let wrapper = Wrapper(i32);
wrapper.method();
let wrapper2 = Wrapper2{x: i32};
wrapper2.method();
}
```
```
Error[E0599]: no method named `method` found for struct `Wrapper<_>` in the current scope
....
error[E0599]: no method named `method` found for struct `Wrapper2<i32>` in the current scope
...
= note: The method was found for Wrapper2<i8>.
```
I am not very happy with the ```no method named `test` found for struct `Vec<_, _>` in the current scope```. I think it might be better to show only one generic argument `Vec<_>` if there is a default one. But I haven't yet found a way to do that,
While stdlib implementations of the unchecked methods require unchecked
math, there is no reason to gate it behind this for external users. The
reasoning for a separate `step_trait_ext` feature is unclear, and as
such has been merged as well.
fix `matches!` and `assert_matches!` on edition 2021
Previously this code failed to compile on edition 2021. [(Playground)](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=53960f2f051f641777b9e458da747707)
```rust
fn main() {
matches!((), ());
}
```
```
Compiling playground v0.0.1 (/playground)
error: `$pattern:pat` may be followed by `|`, which is not allowed for `pat` fragments
|
= note: allowed there are: `=>`, `,`, `=`, `if` or `in`
error: aborting due to previous error
error: could not compile `playground`
To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.
```
Post-monomorphization errors traces MVP
This PR works towards better diagnostics for the errors encountered in #85155 and similar.
We can encounter post-monomorphization errors (PMEs) when collecting mono items. The current diagnostics are confusing for these cases when they happen in a dependency (but are acceptable when they happen in the local crate).
These kinds of errors will be more likely now that `stdarch` uses const generics for its intrinsics' immediate arguments, and validates these const arguments with a mechanism that triggers such PMEs.
(Not to mention that the errors happen during codegen, so only when building code that actually uses these code paths. Check builds don't trigger them, neither does unused code)
So in this PR, we detect these kinds of errors during the mono item graph walk: if any error happens while collecting a node or its neighbors, we print a diagnostic about the current collection step, so that the user has at least some context of which erroneous code and dependency triggered the error.
The diagnostics for issue #85155 now have this note showing the source of the erroneous const argument:
```
note: the above error was encountered while instantiating `fn std::arch::x86_64::_mm_blend_ps::<51_i32>`
--> issue-85155.rs:11:24
|
11 | let _blended = _mm_blend_ps(a, b, 0x33);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Note that #85155 is a reduced version of a case happening in the wild, to indirect users of the `rustfft` crate, as seen in https://github.com/ejmahler/RustFFT/issues/74. The crate had a few of these out-of-range immediates. Here's how the diagnostics in this PR would have looked on one of its examples before it was fixed:
<details>
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
8 | assert!(IMM >= MIN && IMM <= MAX, "IMM value not in expected range");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the evaluated program panicked at 'IMM value not in expected range', ./stdarch/crates/core_arch/src/macros.rs:8:9
|
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
note: the above error was encountered while instantiating `fn _mm_blend_ps::<51_i32>`
--> /tmp/RustFFT/src/avx/avx_vector.rs:1314:23
|
1314 | let blended = _mm_blend_ps(rows[0], rows[2], 0x33);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: the above error was encountered while instantiating `fn _mm_permute_pd::<5_i32>`
--> /tmp/RustFFT/src/avx/avx_vector.rs:1859:9
|
1859 | _mm_permute_pd(self, 0x05)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: the above error was encountered while instantiating `fn _mm_permute_pd::<15_i32>`
--> /tmp/RustFFT/src/avx/avx_vector.rs:1863:32
|
1863 | (_mm_movedup_pd(self), _mm_permute_pd(self, 0x0F))
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0080`.
error: could not compile `rustfft`
To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.
```
</details>
I've developed and discussed this with them, so maybe r? `@oli-obk` -- but feel free to redirect to someone else of course.
(I'm not sure we can say that this PR definitely closes issue 85155, as it's still unclear exactly which diagnostics and information would be interesting to report in such cases -- and we've discussed printing backtraces before. I have prototypes of some complete and therefore noisy backtraces I showed Oli, but we decided to not include them in this PR for now)
Disallow shadowing const parameters
This pull request fixes#85348. Trying to shadow a `const` parameter as follows:
```rust
fn foo<const N: i32>() {
let N @ _ = 0;
}
```
currently causes an ICE. With my changes, I get:
```
error[E0530]: let bindings cannot shadow const parameters
--> test.rs:2:9
|
1 | fn foo<const N: i32>() {
| - the const parameter `N` is defined here
2 | let N @ _ = 0;
| ^ cannot be named the same as a const parameter
error: aborting due to previous error
```
This is the same error you get when trying to shadow a constant:
```rust
const N: i32 = 0;
let N @ _ = 0;
```
```
error[E0530]: let bindings cannot shadow constants
--> src/lib.rs:3:5
|
2 | const N: i32 = 0;
| ----------------- the constant `N` is defined here
3 | let N @ _ = 0;
| ^ cannot be named the same as a constant
error: aborting due to previous error
```
The reason for disallowing shadowing in both cases is described [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/33118#issuecomment-233962221) (the comment there only talks about constants, but the same reasoning applies to `const` parameters).
Avoid CJK legacy fonts in Windows
As metioned in #84035, the default serif CJK font in Windows is meh-looking.
To avoid this, we should use sans-serif font or provide CJK glyph supported font in `rustdoc.css`.
Previously, we sorted the vec prior to hashing, making the hash
independent of the original (command-line argument) order. However, the
original vec was still always kept in the original order, so we were
relying on the rest of the compiler always working with it in an
'order-independent' way.
This assumption was not being upheld by the `native_libraries` query -
the order of the entires in its result depends on the order of entries
in `Options.libs`. This lead to an 'unstable fingerprint' ICE when the
`-l` arguments were re-ordered.
This PR removes the sorting logic entirely. Re-ordering command-line
arguments (without adding/removing/changing any arguments) seems like a
really niche use case, and correctly optimizing for it would require
additional work. By always hashing arguments in their original order, we
can entirely avoid a cause of 'unstable fingerprint' errors.
This test reproduces post-monomorphization errors one can encounter
when using incorrect immediate arguments to some of the stdarch
intrinsics using const generics.
