Support for `f16` and `f128` is varied across targets, backends, and
backend versions. Eventually we would like to reach a point where all
backends support these approximately equally, but until then we have to
work around some of these nuances of support being observable.
Introduce the `cfg_target_has_reliable_f16_f128` internal feature, which
provides the following new configuration gates:
* `cfg(target_has_reliable_f16)`
* `cfg(target_has_reliable_f16_math)`
* `cfg(target_has_reliable_f128)`
* `cfg(target_has_reliable_f128_math)`
`reliable_f16` and `reliable_f128` indicate that basic arithmetic for
the type works correctly. The `_math` versions indicate that anything
relying on `libm` works correctly, since sometimes this hits a separate
class of codegen bugs.
These options match configuration set by the build script at [1]. The
logic for LLVM support is duplicated as-is from the same script. There
are a few possible updates that will come as a follow up.
The config introduced here is not planned to ever become stable, it is
only intended to replace the build scripts for `std` tests and
`compiler-builtins` that don't have any way to configure based on the
codegen backend.
MCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/866
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/866
[1]: 555e1d0386/library/std/build.rs (L84-L186)
Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals`
Closes#131204
`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated
This will end up conflicting with the test in #138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating
--
# Stabilization Report
## General design
### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?
[RFC 3695](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695), none.
### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.
None
### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?
None
## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?
Yes; only positive feedback was received.
## Implementation quality
### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)
Implemented in [#131034](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131034).
### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature
- [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs)
- [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs)
- [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs)
- [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs)
- Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs`
- Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs`
### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?
The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature.
### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?
None
### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
- `@clubby789` (RFC)
- `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc)
### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?
`rustdoc`'s unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized.
## Type system and execution rules
### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)
A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.
```
error[E0610]: `{integer}` is a primitive type and therefore doesn't have fields
--> $DIR/attempted-access-non-fatal.rs:7:15
|
LL | let _ = 2.l;
| ^
|
help: if intended to be a floating point literal, consider adding a `0` after the period and a `f64` suffix
|
LL - let _ = 2.l;
LL + let _ = 2.0f64;
|
```
While working on #122661, some of these started triggering our "unnecessary parens" lints due to a change in the `assert!` desugaring. A cursory search identified a few more. Some of these have been carried from before 1.0, were a bulk rename from the previous name of `assert!` left them in that state. I went and removed as many of these unnecessary parens as possible in order to have fewer annoyances in the future if we make the lint smarter.
Make deprecated_cfg_attr_crate_type_name a hard error
Turns the forward compatibility lint added by #83744 into a hard error, so now, while the `#![crate_name]` and `#![crate_type]` attributes are still allowed in raw form, they are now forbidden to be nested inside a `#![cfg_attr()]` attribute.
The following will now be an error:
```Rust
#![cfg_attr(foo, crate_name = "foobar")]
#![cfg_attr(foo, crate_type = "bin")]
```
This code will continue working and is not deprecated:
```Rust
#![crate_name = "foobar"]
#![crate_type = "lib"]
```
The reasoning for this is explained in #83744: it allows us to not have to cfg-expand in order to determine the crate's type and name.
As of filing the PR, exactly two years have passed since #99784 has been merged, which has turned the lint's default warning level into an error, so there has been ample time to move off the now-forbidden syntax.
cc #91632 - tracking issue for the lint
Previously we would only mention that the item was gated out, and opportunisitically mention the feature flag name when possible. We now point to the place where the item was gated, which can be behind layers of macro indirection, or in different modules.
```
error[E0433]: failed to resolve: could not find `doesnt_exist` in `inner`
--> $DIR/diagnostics-cross-crate.rs:18:23
|
LL | cfged_out::inner::doesnt_exist::hello();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ could not find `doesnt_exist` in `inner`
|
note: found an item that was configured out
--> $DIR/auxiliary/cfged_out.rs:6:13
|
LL | pub mod doesnt_exist {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: the item is gated here
--> $DIR/auxiliary/cfged_out.rs:5:5
|
LL | #[cfg(FALSE)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
* The WASI targets deal with the `main` symbol a bit differently than
native so some `codegen` and `assembly` tests have been ignored.
* All `ignore-emscripten` directives have been updated to
`ignore-wasm32` to be more clear that all wasm targets are ignored and
it's not just Emscripten.
* Most `ignore-wasm32-bare` directives are now gone.
* Some ignore directives for wasm were switched to `needs-unwind`
instead.
* Many `ignore-wasm32*` directives are removed as the tests work with
WASI as opposed to `wasm32-unknown-unknown`.
