Support registering inert attributes and attribute tools using crate-level attributes
And remove `#[feature(custom_attribute)]`.
(`rustc_plugin::Registry::register_attribute` is not removed yet, I'll do it in a follow up PR.)
```rust
#![register_attr(my_attr)]
#![register_tool(my_tool)]
#[my_attr] // OK
#[my_tool::anything] // OK
fn main() {}
```
---
Some tools (`rustfmt` and `clippy`) used in tool attributes are hardcoded in the compiler.
We need some way to introduce them without hardcoding as well.
This PR introduces a way to do it with a crate level attribute.
The previous attempt to introduce them through command line (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/57921) met some resistance.
This probably needs to go through an RFC before stabilization.
However, I'd prefer to land *this* PR without an RFC to able to remove `#[feature(custom_attribute)]` and `Registry::register_attribute` while also providing a replacement.
---
`register_attr` is a direct replacement for `#![feature(custom_attribute)]` (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/29642), except it doesn't rely on implicit fallback from unresolved attributes to custom attributes (which was always hacky and is the primary reason for the removal of `custom_attribute`) and requires registering the attribute explicitly.
It's not clear whether it should go through stabilization or not.
It's quite possible that all the uses should migrate to `#![register_tool]` (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66079) instead.
---
Details:
- The naming is `register_attr`/`register_tool` rather than some `register_attributes` (plural, no abbreviation) for consistency with already existing attributes like `cfg_attr`, or `feature`, etc.
---
Previous attempt: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/57921
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44690
Tracking issues: #66079 (`register_tool`), #66080 (`register_attr`)
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/29642
invalid_value lint: use diagnostic items
This adjusts the invalid_value lint to use diagnostic items.
@Centril @oli-obk For some reason, this fails to recognize `transmute` -- somehow the diagnostic item is not found. Any idea why?
r? @Centril
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66075
syntax: ABI-oblivious grammar
This PR has the following effects:
1. `extern $lit` is now legal where `$lit:literal` and `$lit` is substituted for a string literal.
2. `extern "abi_that_does_not_exist"` is now *syntactically* legal whereas before, the set of ABI strings was hard-coded into the grammar of the language. With this PR, the set of ABIs are instead validated and translated during lowering. That seems more appropriate.
3. `ast::FloatTy` is now distinct from `rustc_target::abi::FloatTy`. The former is used substantially more and the translation between them is only necessary in a single place.
4. As a result of 2-3, libsyntax no longer depends on librustc_target, which should improve pipe-lining somewhat.
cc @rust-lang/lang -- the points 1-2 slightly change the definition of the language but in a way which seems consistent with our general principles (in particular wrt. the discussions of turning things into semantic errors). I expect this to be uncontroversial but it's worth letting y'all know. :)
r? @varkor
Improve uninit/zeroed lint
* Also warn when creating a raw pointer with a NULL vtable.
* Also identify `MaybeUninit::uninit().assume_init()` and `MaybeUninit::zeroed().assume_init()` as dangerous.
caller_location: point to macro invocation sites, like file!/line!, and use in core::panic!.
The main change here is to `core::panic!`, trying to fix this remaining regression: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/65927#issuecomment-547625147
However, in order for `caller_location` to be usable from macros the same way `file!()`/`line!()` are, it needs to have the same behavior (of extracting the macro invocation site `Span` and using that).
Arguably we would've had to do this at some point anyway, if we want to use `#[track_caller]` to replace the `file!()`/`line!()` uses from macros, but I'm not sure the RFC mentions this at all.
r? @petrochenkov cc @anp @nnethercote
Rename `LocalInternedString` and more
This PR renames `LocalInternedString` as `SymbolStr`, removes an unnecessary `impl` from it, improves comments, and cleans up some `SymbolStr` uses.
r? @estebank
Because it's highly magical, which goes against the goal of keeping
`SymbolStr` simple. Plus it's only used in a handful of places that
only require minor changes.
It makes the relationship with `Symbol` clearer. The `Str` suffix
matches the existing `Symbol::as_str()` method nicely, and is also
consistent with it being a wrapper of `&str`.
Add new EFIAPI ABI
Fixes#54527
Adds a new ABI, "efiapi", which reflects the calling convention as specified by [the current spec UEFI spec](https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI%20Spec%202_7_A%20Sept%206.pdf#G6.999903). When compiling for x86_64, we should select the `win64` ABI, while on all other architectures (Itanium, x86, ARM and ARM64 and RISC-V), we should select the `C` ABI.
Currently, this is done by just turning it into the C ABI everywhere except on x86_64, where it's turned into the win64 ABI. Should we prevent this ABI from being used on unsupported architectures, and if so, how would this be done?
Adds a new ABI for the EFIAPI calls. This ABI should reflect the latest
version of the UEFI specification at the time of commit (UEFI spec 2.8,
URL below). The specification says that for x86_64, we should follow the
win64 ABI, while on all other supported platforms (ia32, itanium, arm,
arm64 and risc-v), we should follow the C ABI.
To simplify the implementation, we will simply follow the C ABI on all
platforms except x86_64, even those technically unsupported by the UEFI
specification.
https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI_Spec_2_8_final.pdf
Fix the start/end byte positions in the compiler JSON output
Track the changes made during normalization in the `SourceFile` and use this information to correct the `start_byte` and `end_byte` fields in the JSON output.
This should ensure the start/end byte fields can be used to index the original file, even if Rust normalized the source code for parsing purposes. Both CRLF to LF and BOM removal are handled with this one.
The rough plan was discussed with @matklad in rust-lang-nursery/rustfix#176 - although I ended up going with `u32` offset tracking so I wouldn't need to deal with `u32 + i32` arithmetics when applying the offset to the span byte positions.
Fixes#65029
Remove `InternedString`
This PR removes `InternedString` by converting all occurrences to `Symbol`. There are a handful of places that need to use the symbol chars instead of the symbol index, e.g. for stable sorting; local conversions `LocalInternedString` is used in those places.
r? @eddyb
Currently, `Symbol::Debug` and `Symbol::Display` produce the same
output; neither wraps the symbol in double quotes.
This commit changes `Symbol::Debug` so it wraps the symbol in quotes.
This change brings `Symbol`'s behaviour in line with `String` and
`InternedString`. The change requires a couple of trivial test output
adjustments.
Remove last uses of gensyms
Underscore bindings now use unique `SyntaxContext`s to avoid collisions. This was the last use of gensyms in the compiler, so this PR also removes them.
closes#49300
cc #60869
r? @petrochenkov
Remove custom `PartialEq` impls for `LocalInternedString`.
This is on-trend with the recent changes simplifying
`LocalInternedString` and reducing its use.
r? @petrochenkov
Split non-CAS atomic support off into target_has_atomic_load_store
This PR implements my proposed changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/32976#issuecomment-518542029 by removing `target_has_atomic = "cas"` and splitting `target_has_atomic` into two separate `cfg`s:
* `target_has_atomic = 8/16/32/64/128`: This indicates the largest width that the target can atomically CAS (which implies support for all atomic operations).
* ` target_has_atomic_load_store = 8/16/32/64/128`: This indicates the largest width that the target can support loading or storing atomically (but may not support CAS).
cc #32976
r? @alexcrichton
- The attribute is behind a feature gate.
- Error if both #[naked] and #[track_caller] are applied to the same function.
- Error if #[track_caller] is applied to a non-function item.
- Error if ABI is not "rust"
- Error if #[track_caller] is applied to a trait function.
Error codes and descriptions are pending.
Add support for `const unsafe? extern fn`
This works just as you might expect - an `const extern fn` is a `const fn` that is callable from foreign code.
Currently, panicking is not allowed in `const`s. When https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2345 (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51999) is stabilized, then panicking in an `const extern fn` will produce a compile-time error when invoked at compile time, and an abort when invoked at runtime.
Since this is extending the language (we're allowing the `const` keyword in a new context), I believe that this will need an FCP. However, it's a very minor change, so I didn't think that filing an RFC was necessary.
This will allow libc (and other FFI crates) to make many functions `const`, without having to give up on making them `extern` as well.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64926.
This works just as you might expect - an 'extern const fn' is a 'const
fn' that is callable from foreign code.
Currently, panicking is not allowed in consts. When RFC 2345 is
stabilized, then panicking in an 'extern const fn' will produce a
compile-time error when invoked at compile time, and an abort when
invoked at runtime.
Since this is extending the language (we're allowing the `const` keyword
in a new context), I believe that this will need an FCP. However, it's a
very minor change, so I didn't think that filing an RFC was necessary.
This will allow libc (and other FFI crates) to make many functions
`const`, without having to give up on making them `extern` as well.
A small amount of tidying-up factored out from PR #64648
As requested by @Mark-Simulacrum, I put this in a separate commit to make it easier to review. (As far as I can tell, no violations of the policy here, and they are simply in a separate PR because they're not directly related to the import of that PR.)
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
