Effects cleanup
- removed extra bits from predicates queries that are no longer needed in the new system
- removed the need for `non_erasable_generics` to take in tcx and DefId, removed unused arguments in callers
r? compiler-errors
- removed extra bits from predicates queries that are no longer needed in the new system
- removed the need for `non_erasable_generics` to take in tcx and DefId, removed unused arguments in callers
Const stability checks v2
The const stability system has served us well ever since `const fn` were first stabilized. It's main feature is that it enforces *recursive* validity -- a stable const fn cannot internally make use of unstable const features without an explicit marker in the form of `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable]`. This is done to make sure that we don't accidentally expose unstable const features on stable in a way that would be hard to take back. As part of this, it is enforced that a `#[rustc_const_stable]` can only call `#[rustc_const_stable]` functions. However, some problems have been coming up with increased usage:
- It is baffling that we have to mark private or even unstable functions as `#[rustc_const_stable]` when they are used as helpers in regular stable `const fn`, and often people will rather add `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable]` instead which was not our intention.
- The system has several gaping holes: a private `const fn` without stability attributes whose inherited stability (walking up parent modules) is `#[stable]` is allowed to call *arbitrary* unstable const operations, but can itself be called from stable `const fn`. Similarly, `#[allow_internal_unstable]` on a macro completely bypasses the recursive nature of the check.
Fundamentally, the problem is that we have *three* disjoint categories of functions, and not enough attributes to distinguish them:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
Functions in the first two categories cannot use unstable const features and they can only call functions from the first two categories.
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, all the holes mentioned above have been closed. There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to be manually marked `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` to be sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked), it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or `#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]` functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding `#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]` functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No other attributes are required.
Also see the updated dev-guide at https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/2098.
I think in the future we may want to tweak this further, so that in the hopefully common case where a public function's const-stability just exactly mirrors its regular stability, we never have to add any attribute. But right now, once the function is stable this requires `#[rustc_const_stable]`.
### Open question
There is one point I could see we might want to do differently, and that is putting `#[rustc_const_unstable]` functions (but not intrinsics) in category 2 by default, and requiring an extra attribute for `#[rustc_const_not_exposed_on_stable]` or so. This would require a bunch of extra annotations, but would have the advantage that turning a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` into `#[rustc_const_stable]` will never change the way the function is const-checked. Currently, we often discover in the const stabilization PR that a function needs some other unstable const things, and then we rush to quickly deal with that. In this alternative universe, we'd work towards getting rid of the `rustc_const_not_exposed_on_stable` before stabilization, and once that is done stabilization becomes a trivial matter. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` would then only be used for intrinsics.
I think I like this idea, but might want to do it in a follow-up PR, as it will need a whole bunch of annotations in the standard library. Also, we probably want to convert all const intrinsics to the "new" form (`#[rustc_intrinsic]` instead of an `extern` block) before doing this to avoid having to deal with two different ways of declaring intrinsics.
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` `@rust-lang/libs-api`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129815 (but not finished since this is not yet sufficient to safely let us expose `const fn` from hashbrown)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131073 by making it so that const-stable functions are always stable
try-job: test-various
Rollup of 3 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #132106 (Pass Ident by reference in ast Visitor)
- #132130 (remove `change-id` from CI script)
- #132137 (library: consistently use American spelling for 'behavior')
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Then we can rename the _raw functions to drop their suffix, and instead
explicitly use is_stable_const_fn for the few cases where that is really what
you want.
Run the full stage 2 `run-make` test suite in `x86_64-gnu-debug`
Run the full `run-make` test suite in the `x86_64-gnu-debug` CI job. This is currently the *only* CI job where `//@ needs-force-clang-based-test` will be satisfied, so some `run-make` tests will literally never be run otherwise. Before this PR, the CI job only ran `run-make` tests which contains the substring `clang` in its test name, which is both (1) a footgun because it's very easy to forget and (2) it masks tests that would otherwise fail (even failing to compile) because the test is skipped if doesn't have a `clang` in its test name.
With the environment of `x86_64-gnu-debug`, two `run-make` tests failed before this PR:
1. `tests/run-make/issue-84395-lto-embed-bitcode/rmake.rs`: this was broken for a long time because `objcopy` in llvm bin tools was renamed to `llvm-objcopy`. This test was converted into a rmake.rs test, rather straight forward.
2. `tests/run-make/cross-lang-lto-riscv-abi/rmake.rs`: this was broken for a long time and never worked. The old version inspected human-readable output of `llvm-readobj --file-header` looking for substring `EF_RISCV_FLOAT_ABI_DOUBLE`, but the human-readable output will only contain something like `Flags: 0x5, RVC, double-float ABI`, hence it will never match. This test was fixed by instead using the `object` crate to actually decode the ELF headers looking for the specific `e_flags` based on reading the RISCV ELF psABI docs.
This PR is best reviewed commit-by-commit, two commits setup the support library for functionality and two commits are for each of the failing `run-make` tests.
I had to bump the `x86_64-gnu-debug` job to be ran with a runner with larger disk space.
Part of #132034.
try-job: x86_64-gnu-debug
Pass Ident by reference in ast Visitor
`MutVisitor`'s version of `visit_ident` passes around `&Ident`, but `Visitor` copies `Ident`. This PR changes that
r? `@petrochenkov`
related to #128974
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #131851 ([musl] use posix_spawn if a directory change was requested)
- #132048 (AIX: use /dev/urandom for random implementation )
- #132093 (compiletest: suppress Windows Error Reporting (WER) for `run-make` tests)
- #132101 (Avoid using imports in thread_local_inner! in static)
- #132113 (Provide a default impl for Pattern::as_utf8_pattern)
- #132115 (rustdoc: Extend fake_variadic to "wrapped" tuples)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
compiletest: suppress Windows Error Reporting (WER) for `run-make` tests
WER by default will show a *bunch* of error dialogues for missing DLLs on Windows for `run-make` tests. We address that by:
1. Guarding `run-make` test process spawning with `disable_error_reporting`.
2. Fixing `disable_error_reporting` to also add the [`SEM_FAILCRITICALERRORS` flag to `SetErrorMode`][SetErrorMode]. Just `SEM_NOGPFAULTERRORBOX` was not sufficient to suppress error dialogues for e.g. missing DLLs.
Fixes#132092. In particular, refer to that issue for the necessary conditions to observe these dialogues from popping up in the first place.
I was only able to manually test this locally in my "native" Windows msvc environment and it prevents the WER dialogues from popping up, I don't think it's possible to really test this automatically.
[SetErrorMode]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/errhandlingapi/nf-errhandlingapi-seterrormode?redirectedfrom=MSDN#parameters
Don't allow test revisions that conflict with built in cfgs
Fixes#128964
Sorry `@heysujal` I started working on this about 1 minute before your comment by complete coincidence 😅
Add wasm32v1-none target (compiler-team/#791)
This is a preliminary implementation of the MCP discussed in [compiler-team#791](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/791). It's not especially "major" but you know, process! Anyway it adds a new wasm32v1-none target which just pins down a set of wasm features. I think this is close to the consensus that emerged when discussing it on Zulip so I figured I'd sketch to see how hard it is. Turns out not very.
Compiletest: Custom differ
This adds support for a custom differ for compiletests. It’s purely visual and helps produce cleaner output when UI tests fail.
I’m using an environment variable for now since it’s experimental and I don’t want to drill the cli arguments all the way down. Also did a bit of general cleanup while I was at it.
This is how it looks [with debug info silenced](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131182) (#131182)
`COMPILETEST_DIFF_TOOL="/usr/bin/env difft --color always --background light --display side-by-side" ./x test tests/ui/parser`
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125205 (Fixup Windows verbatim paths when used with the `include!` macro)
- #131049 (Validate args are correct for `UnevaluatedConst`, `ExistentialTraitRef`/`ExistentialProjection`)
- #131549 (Add a note for `?` on a `impl Future<Output = Result<..>>` in sync function)
- #131731 (add `TestFloatParse` to `tools.rs` for bootstrap)
- #131732 (Add doc(plugins), doc(passes), etc. to INVALID_DOC_ATTRIBUTES)
- #132006 (don't stage-off to previous compiler when CI rustc is available)
- #132022 (Move `cmp_in_dominator_order` out of graph dominator computation)
- #132033 (compiletest: Make `line_directive` return a `DirectiveLine`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
compiletest: Make `line_directive` return a `DirectiveLine`
This reduces the need to juggle raw tuples, and opens up the possibility of moving more parts of directive parsing into `line_directive`.
In order to make the main change possible, this PR also (partly) separates the debugger-command parsing from the main directive parser. That cleanup removes support for `[rev]` in debugger commands, which is not used by any tests.
terminology: #[feature] *enables* a feature (instead of "declaring" or "activating" it)
Mostly, we currently call a feature that has a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` attribute in the current crate a "declared" feature. I think that is confusing as it does not align with what "declaring" usually means. Furthermore, we *also* refer to `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]` as *declaring* a feature (e.g. in [these diagnostics](f25e5abea2/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl (L297-L301))), which aligns better with what "declaring" usually means. To make things worse, the functions `tcx.features().active(...)` and `tcx.features().declared(...)` both exist and they are doing almost the same thing (testing whether a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` exists) except that `active` would ICE if the feature is not an unstable lang feature. On top of this, the callback when a feature is activated/declared is called `set_enabled`, and many comments also talk about "enabling" a feature.
So really, our terminology is just a mess.
I would suggest we use "declaring a feature" for saying that something is/was guarded by a feature (e.g. `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]`), and "enabling a feature" for `#[feature(name)]`. This PR implements that.
Move const trait tests from `ui/rfcs/rfc-2632-const-trait-impl` to `ui/traits/const-traits`
I found the old test directory to be somewhat long to name, and I don't think it's necessary to put an experimental implementation's tests under an rfc which is closed.
r? fee1-dead
Breaking this out of #131985 so that PR doesn't touch 300 files.
make unsupported_calling_conventions a hard error
This has been a future-compat lint (not shown in dependencies) since Rust 1.55, released 3 years ago. Hopefully that was enough time so this can be made a hard error now. Given that long timeframe, I think it's justified to skip the "show in dependencies" stage. There were [not many crates hitting this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86231#issuecomment-866300943) even when the lint was originally added.
This should get cratered, and I assume then it needs a t-compiler FCP. (t-compiler because this looks entirely like an implementation oversight -- for the vast majority of ABIs, we already have a hard error, but some were initially missed, and we are finally fixing that.)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87678
feat: better completions for extern blcoks
This PR refactors `add_keywords` (making it much clearer!) and enhances completion for `extern` blocks.
It is recommended to reviewing the changes in order of the commits:
- The first commit (f3c4dde0a4917a2bac98605cc045eecfb4d69872) doesn’t change any logic but refactors parts of the `add_keywords` function and adds detailed comments.
- The second commit (5dcc1ab649bf8a49cadf006d620871b12f093a2f) improves completion for `extern` kw and extern blocks.
linkchecker: add a reminder on broken links to add new/renamed pages to `SUMMARY.md` for mdBooks
I spent an embarrassingly long amount of time trying to figure out why CI was failing for a PR adding new platform support docs. In turns out it's because the PR author didn't register the new page in `SUMMARY.md`. I completely forgot about it too, and was reading linkchecker source because I thought it was a bug in linkchecker.
So this PR adds a note to modify `SUMMARY.md` when adding new pages in a mdBook.
E.g.
```
# Adding a new `meow` target but forgor to register the page in `SUMMARY.md`
rustc\platform-support.html:183: broken link - `rustc\platform-support\meow.html`
rustc\print.html:9730: broken link - `rustc\platform-support\meow.html`
checked links in: 19.1s
number of HTML files scanned: 43588
number of HTML redirects found: 13735
number of links checked: 3145951
number of links ignored due to external: 156244
number of links ignored due to exceptions: 9
number of intra doc links ignored: 8
errors found: 2
NOTE: if you are adding or renaming a markdown file in a mdBook, don't forget to register the page in SUMMARY.md
found some broken links
```
