The change was "Show invisible delimiters (within comments) when pretty
printing". It's useful to show these delimiters, but is a breaking
change for some proc macros.
Fixes#97608.
Prepare Rust for opaque pointers
Fix one codegen bug with opaque pointers, and update our IR tests to accept both typed pointer and opaque pointer IR. This is a bit annoying, but unavoidable if we want decent test coverage on both LLVM 14 and LLVM 15.
This prepares Rust for when LLVM will enable opaque pointers by default.
Make some tests check-pass
This touches the tests related to lint, parser, and importing, all of them should be fine with `check-pass`.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Add support for embedding pretty printers via `#[debugger_visualizer]` attribute
Initial support for [RFC 3191](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3191) in PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/91779 was scoped to supporting embedding NatVis files using a new attribute. This PR implements the pretty printer support as stated in the RFC mentioned above.
This change includes embedding pretty printers in the `.debug_gdb_scripts` just as the pretty printers for rustc are embedded today. Also added additional tests for embedded pretty printers. Additionally cleaned up error checking so all error checking is done up front regardless of the current target.
RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3191
Previously whenever a duplicate discriminant was detected for an Enum,
we would print the discriminant bits in the diagnostic without any
casting. This caused us to display incorrect values for negative
discriminants. After this PR we format the discriminant signedness
correctly. Also reworded some of the original error
messages.
proc_macro: don't pass a client-side function pointer through the server.
Before this PR, `proc_macro::bridge::Client<F>` contained both:
* the C ABI entry-point `run`, that the server can call to start the client
* some "payload" `f: F` passed to that entry-point
* in practice, this was always a (client-side Rust ABI) `fn` pointer to the actual function the proc macro author wrote, i.e. `#[proc_macro] fn foo(input: TokenStream) -> TokenStream`
In other words, the client was passing one of its (Rust) `fn` pointers to the server, which was passing it back to the client, for the client to call (see later below for why that was ever needed).
I was inspired by `@nnethercote's` attempt to remove the `get_handle_counters` field from `Client` (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97004#issuecomment-1139273301), which combined with removing the `f` ("payload") field, could theoretically allow for a `#[repr(transparent)]` `Client` that mostly just newtypes the C ABI entry-point `fn` pointer <sub>(and in the context of e.g. wasm isolation, that's *all* you want, since you can reason about it from outside the wasm VM, as just a 32-bit "function table index", that you can pass to the wasm VM to call that function)</sub>.
<hr/>
So this PR removes that "payload". But it's not a simple refactor: the reason the field existed in the first place is because monomorphizing over a function type doesn't let you call the function without having a value of that type, because function types don't implement anything like `Default`, i.e.:
```rust
extern "C" fn ffi_wrapper<A, R, F: Fn(A) -> R>(arg: A) -> R {
let f: F = ???; // no way to get a value of `F`
f(arg)
}
```
That could be solved with something like this, if it was allowed:
```rust
extern "C" fn ffi_wrapper<
A, R,
F: Fn(A) -> R,
const f: F // not allowed because the type is a generic param
>(arg: A) -> R {
f(arg)
}
```
Instead, this PR contains a workaround in `proc_macro::bridge::selfless_reify` (see its module-level comment for more details) that can provide something similar to the `ffi_wrapper` example above, but limited to `F` being `Copy` and ZST (and requiring an `F` value to prove the caller actually can create values of `F` and it's not uninhabited or some other unsound situation).
<hr/>
Hopefully this time we don't have a performance regression, and this has a chance to land.
cc `@mystor` `@bjorn3`
Split dead store elimination off dest prop
This splits off a part of #96451 . I've added this in as its own pass for now, so that it actually runs, can be tested, etc. In the dest prop PR, I'll stop invoking this as its own pass, so that it doesn't get invoked twice.
r? `@tmiasko`
macros: introduce `fluent_messages` macro
Adds a new `fluent_messages` macro which performs compile-time validation of the compiler's Fluent resources (i.e. that the resources parse and don't multiply define the same messages) and generates constants that make using those messages in diagnostics more ergonomic.
For example, given the following invocation of the macro..
```rust
fluent_messages! {
typeck => "./typeck.ftl",
}
```
..where `typeck.ftl` has the following contents..
```fluent
typeck-field-multiply-specified-in-initializer =
field `{$ident}` specified more than once
.label = used more than once
.label-previous-use = first use of `{$ident}`
```
...then the macro parse the Fluent resource, emitting a diagnostic if it fails to do so...
```text
error: could not parse Fluent resource
--> $DIR/test.rs:35:28
|
LL | missing_message => "./missing-message.ftl",
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= help: see additional errors emitted
error: expected a message field for "missing-message"
--> ./missing-message.ftl:1:1
|
1 | missing-message =
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
```
...or generating the following code if it succeeds:
```rust
pub static DEFAULT_LOCALE_RESOURCES: &'static [&'static str] = &[
include_str!("./typeck.ftl"),
];
mod fluent_generated {
mod typeck {
pub const field_multiply_specified_in_initializer: DiagnosticMessage =
DiagnosticMessage::fluent("typeck-field-multiply-specified-in-initializer");
pub const field_multiply_specified_in_initializer_label_previous_use: DiagnosticMessage =
DiagnosticMessage::fluent_attr(
"typeck-field-multiply-specified-in-initializer",
"previous-use-label"
);
}
}
```
When emitting a diagnostic, the generated constants can be used as follows:
```rust
let mut err = sess.struct_span_err(
span,
fluent::typeck::field_multiply_specified_in_initializer
);
err.span_label(
span,
fluent::typeck::field_multiply_specified_in_initializer_label
);
err.span_label(
previous_use_span,
fluent::typeck::field_multiply_specified_in_initializer_label_previous_use
);
err.emit();
```
I'd like to reduce the verbosity of referring to labels/notes/helps with this scheme (though it wasn't much better before), but I'll leave that for a follow-up.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@pvdrz` `@compiler-errors`
Add suggestion for relaxing static lifetime bounds on dyn trait impls in NLL
This PR introduces suggestions for relaxing static lifetime bounds on impls of dyn trait items for NLL similar to what is already available in lexical region diagnostics.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95701
r? `@estebank`
Move various checks to typeck so them failing causes the typeck result to get tainted
Fixes#69487fixes#79047
cc `@RalfJung` this gets rid of the `Transmute` invalid program error variant
Fix multiline attributes processing in doctest
Fixes#97440.
It seems like the call to `check_if_attr_is_complete` is not provided with the correct argument: the pending attribute should be passed, while the current line is actually being passed. This causes any attribute with more than 2 lines to fail and produces ICE when running through doctest.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #97302 (Do writeback of Closure params before visiting the parent expression)
- #97328 (rustc: Fix ICE in native library error reporting)
- #97351 (Output correct type responsible for structural match violation)
- #97398 (Add regression test for #82830)
- #97400 (Fix a typo on Struct `Substructure`)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Output correct type responsible for structural match violation
Previously we included the outermost type that caused a structural match violation in the error message and stated that that type must be annotated with `#[derive(Eq, PartialEq)]` even if it already had that annotation. This PR outputs the correct type in the error message.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97278
Do writeback of Closure params before visiting the parent expression
This means that given the expression:
```
let x = |a: Vec<_>| {};
```
We will visit the HIR node for `a` before `x`, and report the ambiguity on the former instead of the latter. This also moves writeback for struct field ids and const blocks before, but the ordering of this and walking the expr doesn't seem to matter.
This is a >= condition, so we need a maximum size of 7 to not
create a stack protector in basic mode.
The reason this still worked is that the alloca type was converted
into an integer (rather than an array). The way these heuristics
are implemented in LLVM is rather questionable and not resilient
to optimization.
Extend ptr::null and null_mut to all thin (including extern) types
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93959
This change was accepted in https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2580-ptr-meta.html
Note that this changes the signature of **stable** functions. The change should be backward-compatible, but it is **insta-stable** since it cannot (easily, at all?) be made available only through a `#![feature(…)]` opt-in.
The RFC also proposed the same change for `NonNull::dangling`, which makes sense it terms of its signature but not in terms of its implementation. `dangling` uses `align_of()` as an address. But what `align_of()` should be for extern types or whether it should be allowed at all remains an open question.
This commit depends on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93977, which is not yet part of the bootstrap compiler. So `#[cfg]` is used to only apply the change in stage 1+. As far a I know bounds cannot be made conditional with `#[cfg]`, so the entire functions are duplicated. This is unfortunate but temporary.
Since this duplication makes it less obvious in the diff, the new definitions differ in:
* More permissive bounds (`Thin` instead of implied `Sized`)
* Different implementation
* Having `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable(const_fn_trait_bound)`
* Having `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable(ptr_metadata)`
Minor improvement on else-no-if diagnostic
Don't suggest wrapping in block since it's highly likely to be a missing `if` after `else`. Also rework message a bit (open to further suggestions).
cc: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97298#discussion_r880933431
r? `@estebank`
RFC3239: Implement `cfg(target)` - Part 2
This pull-request implements the compact `cfg(target(..))` part of [RFC 3239](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/96901).
I recommend reviewing this PR on a per commit basics, because of some moving parts.
cc `@GuillaumeGomez`
r? `@petrochenkov`
Modify MIR building to drop repeat expressions with length zero
Closes#74836 .
Previously, when a user wrote `[foo; 0]` we used to simply leak `foo`. The goal is to fix that. This PR changes MIR building to make `[foo; 0]` equivalent to `{ drop(foo); [] }` in all cases. Of course, this is a breaking change (see below). A crater run did not indicate any regressions though, and given that the previous behavior was almost definitely not what any user wanted, it seems unlikely that anyone was relying on this.
Note that const generics are in general unaffected by this. Inserting the extra `drop` is only meaningful/necessary when `foo` is of a non-`Copy` type, and array repeat expressions with const generic repetition count must always be `Copy`.
Besides the obvious change to behavior associated with the additional drop, there are three categories of examples where this also changes observable behavior. In all of these cases, the new behavior is consistent with what you would get by replacing `[foo; 0]` with `{ drop(foo); [] }`. As such, none of these give the user new powers to express more things.
**No longer allowed in const (breaking)**:
```rust
const _: [String; 0] = [String::new(); 0];
```
This compiles on stable today. Because we now introduce the drop of `String`, this no longer compiles as `String` may not be dropped in a const context.
**Reduced dataflow (non-breaking)**:
```rust
let mut x: i32 = 0;
let r = &x;
let a = [r; 0];
x = 5;
let _b = a;
```
Borrowck rejects this code on stable because it believes there is dataflow between `a` and `r`, and so the lifetime of `r` has to extend to the last statement. This change removes the dataflow and the above code is allowed to compile.
**More const promotion (non-breaking)**:
```rust
let _v: &'static [String; 0] = &[String::new(); 0];
```
This does not compile today because `String` having drop glue keeps it from being const promoted (despite that drop glue never being executed). After this change, this is allowed to compile.
### Alternatives
A previous attempt at this tried to reduce breakage by various tricks. This is still a possibility, but given that crater showed no regressions it seems unclear why we would want to introduce this complexity.
Disallowing `[foo; 0]` completely is also an option, but obviously this is more of a breaking change. I do not know how often this is actually used though.
r? `@oli-obk`
Introduce stricter checks for might_permit_raw_init under a debug flag
This is intended to be a version of the strict checks tried out in #79296, but also checking number validity (under the assumption that `let _ = std::mem::uninitialized::<u32>()` is UB, which seems to be what https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/71 is leaning towards.)
Make weird name lints trigger behind cfg_attr
The weird name lints (`unknown_lints`, `renamed_and_removed_lints`), the lints that lint the linting, were previously not firing for lint level declarations behind `cfg_attr`, as they were only running before expansion.
Now, this will give a `unknown_lints` warning:
```Rust
#[cfg_attr(all(), allow(this_lint_does_not_exist))]
fn foo() {}
```
Lint level declarations behind a `cfg_attr` whose condition is not applying are still ignored. So this still won't give a warning:
```Rust
#[cfg_attr(any(), allow(this_lint_does_not_exist))]
fn foo() {}
```
Furthermore, this PR also makes the weird name lints respect level delcarations for *them* that were hidden by `cfg_attr`, making them consistent to other lints. So this will now not issue a warning:
```Rust
#[cfg_attr(all(), allow(unknown_lints))]
mod foo {
#[allow(does_not_exist)]
fn foo() {
}
}
```
Fixes#97094
