Port #[no_link] to use attribute parser
Adds `#[no_link]` to the attribute parser, as well as adds tests making sure to FCW warn on `field`, `arm`, and `macrodef `
Port `#[rustc_legacy_const_generics]` to use attribute parser
Small PR that ports the `#[rustc_legacy_const_generics]` to use the new attribute parser!
r? JonathanBrouwer
Extend parsing of `ReprOptions` with `rustc_scalable_vector(N)` which
optionally accepts a single literal integral value - the base multiple of
lanes that are in a scalable vector. Can only be applied to structs.
Co-authored-by: Jamie Cunliffe <Jamie.Cunliffe@arm.com>
Externally implementable items
Supersedes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140010
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125418
Getting started:
```rust
#![feature(eii)]
#[eii(eii1)]
pub fn decl1(x: u64)
// body optional (it's the default)
{
println!("default {x}");
}
// in another crate, maybe
#[eii1]
pub fn decl2(x: u64) {
println!("explicit {x}");
}
fn main() {
decl1(4);
}
```
- tiny perf regression, underlying issue makes multiple things in the compiler slow, not just EII, planning to solve those separately.
- No codegen_gcc support, they don't have bindings for weak symbols yet but could
- No windows support yet for weak definitions
This PR merges the implementation of EII for just llvm + not windows, doesn't yet contain like a new panic handler implementation or alloc handler. With this implementation, it would support implementing the panic handler in terms of EII already since it requires no default implementation so no weak symbols
The PR has been open in various forms for about a year now, but I feel that having some implementation merged to build upon
Emit `check-cfg` lints during attribute parsing rather than evaluation
The goal of this PR is to make the `eval_config_entry` not have any side effects, by moving the check-cfg lints to the attribute parsing. This also helps ensure we do emit the lint in situations where the attribute happens to be parsed, but never evaluated.
cc ``@jdonszelmann`` ``@Urgau`` for a vibe check if you feel like it
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- rust-lang/rust#147224 (Emscripten: Turn wasm-eh on by default)
- rust-lang/rust#149405 (Recover on misspelled item keyword)
- rust-lang/rust#149443 (Tidying up UI tests [6/N])
- rust-lang/rust#149524 (Move attribute safety checking to attribute parsing)
- rust-lang/rust#149593 (powf, powi: point out SNaN non-determinism)
- rust-lang/rust#149605 (Use branch name instead of HEAD when unshallowing)
- rust-lang/rust#149612 (Apply the `bors` environment also to the `outcome` job)
- rust-lang/rust#149623 (Don't require a normal tool build of clippy/rustfmt when running their test steps)
- rust-lang/rust#149627 (Point to the item that is incorrectly annotated with `#[diagnostic::on_const]`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
While `Unsafe` is much less common, a failure to encode it would make downstream crates default to `Safe` and think a thing marked as unsafe is actually safe
Inherent const impl
Some constifications are annoying because we need to repeat `T: Trait` bounds from an impl block on the individual constified `const fn`s as `T: [const] Trait`. We've brainstormed solutions before, and one would be to have separate `const impl` blocks or sth. However the final syntax will look, I decided to just impl this syntax and either have sth nice on nightly to work with or at least move the discussion along.
Also interacts with the discussion around `impl const Trait for Type` vs `const impl Trait for Type`, as we may want to use the latter to keep inherent and trait impls in sync (unless we come up with even another scheme).
* [ ] rustdoc + tests
* [ ] macro stability /regression tests
r? `@fee1-dead`
cc `@traviscross` `@rust-lang/project-const-traits`
