The missing external macro test for `non_canonical_clone_impl` was
caught thanks to lintcheck -- I went ahead and added all the other
combinations of the test while at it
This introduces a new way of identifying items/paths using extension
traits with a composable set of functions rather than unique functions
for various combinations of starting points and target items. Altogether
this is a set of five traits:
* `MaybeTypeckRes`: Allows both `LateContext` and `TypeckResults` to be
used for type-dependent lookup. The implementation here will avoid ICEs
by returning `None` when debug assertions are disabled. With assertions
this will assert that we don't silently lookup anything from a different
body than the current one and that a definition actually exists.
* `HasHirId`: Simply a convenience to allow not typing `.hir_id` at call
sites.
* `MaybeQPath`: This is the old `MaybePath`. Extension functions for
type-dependent path lookups exist here. A lot of these functions aren't
used in the current PR, but what they accomplish is done in various
places I haven't cleaned up yet.
* `MaybeResPath`: Like `MaybeQPath`, but only does non-type-dependent
lookup (`QPath::Resolved`).
* `MaybeDef`: Extension functions for identifying the current definition
and accessing properties. Implemented for several types for convenience.
`MaybeDef` is implemented for `Option` to allow chaining methods
together. e.g.
`cx.ty_based_def(e).opt_parent(cx).opt_impl_ty(cx).is_diag_item(..)`
would chaining `and_then` or `if let` on every step. `MaybeQPath` and
`MaybeResPath` are also implemented for `Option` for the same reason.
`ty_based_def` is just a shorter name for `type_dependent_def`. I'm not
really attached to it, but it's nice that it's a little shorter.
changelog: none
The compiler complained about uncecessary parenthesis on contract clauses,
which were insterted by the contract macros. This commit changes the
macro to use braces as the delimiter instead, fixing the issue.
The contract_checks compiler flag is now used to determine
if runtime contract checks should be enabled, as opposed
to the compiler intrinsic as previously.
This allows the optimiser to properly eliminate contract code
when runtime contract checks are disabled.
It comes at the cost of having to recompile upstream crates
(e.g. std) to enable contracts in them. However, this trade
off is acceptable if it means disabled runtime contract checks
do not affect the runtime performance of the functions they annotate.
With the proper elimination of contract code, which this change
introduces, the runtime performance of annotated functions
should be the same as the original unannotated function.
Refactor contract HIR lowering to ensure no contract code is
executed when contract-checks are disabled.
The call to contract_checks is moved to inside the lowered fn
body, and contract closures are built conditionally, ensuring
no side-effects present in contracts occur when those are disabled.
remove `#[rustc_inherit_overflow_checks]` from `is_multiple_of`
Most likely this was just a result of copy-pasting. The attribute has no effect, because `%` always uses overflow checks.
r? `@Amanieu`
cc `@RalfJung`
Remove StatementKind::Deinit.
It is a remnant from the time we deaggreated MIR.
Now, it is only constructed by the `LargeEnums` MIR pass, which is disabled by default.
compiletest: Use the same directive lines for EarlyProps and ignore/only/needs
Currently we load each discovered test file to scan it for directives once for EarlyProps parsing, then reload and scan it once *per revision* for ignore processing. If a revision is not ignored, we then reload and scan it again during actual execution.
That's a bit silly, so this PR tries to reduce the number of unnecessary file loads and line scans for directive parsing, by reusing the same collection of `DirectiveLine` values for EarlyProps and for each revision's ignores.
Each individual directive still needs to be re-parsed a bunch of times, but those steps can at least avoid scanning the whole file, or having to split out names from values.
---
There's more that could be done after this, such as only doing known-directive checks once per file, or embedding file paths in each `DirectiveLine`, but I decided to stop here to allow review in modest chunks.
r? jieyouxu
Promote armv7a-none-eabihf to Tier 2
This PR promotes armv7a-none-eabihf to Tier 2, to join armv7r-none-eabihf and armv7a-none-eabi. I believe it was simply an oversight that it wasn't made Tier 2 before, as most Armv7-A targets have an FPU and it often makes sense to use it.
This PR wil be rebased once https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146419 completes the queue.
> - A tier 2 target must have value to people other than its maintainers. (It may
> still be a niche target, but it must not be exclusively useful for an
> inherently closed group.)
The `armv7a-none-eabihf` target is for all Arm Cortex-A processors (either 32-bit only, or in 32-bit mode) where the user wants to use the FPU.
>- A tier 2 target must have a designated team of developers (the "target
> maintainers") available to consult on target-specific build-breaking issues,
> or if necessary to develop target-specific language or library implementation
> details. This team must have at least 2 developers.
The Embedded Devices Working Group's Arm Team have just started maintaining this target.
> - The target must not place undue burden on Rust developers not specifically
> concerned with that target. Rust developers are expected to not gratuitously
> break a tier 2 target, but are not expected to become experts in every tier 2
> target, and are not expected to provide target-specific implementations for
> every tier 2 target.
This target is highly similar to a number of existing Tier 2 targets, including `armv7r-none-eabihf` and `armv7a-none-eabi` and so it should not add undue burden.
> - The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how
> to build for the target using cross-compilation, and explaining how to run
> tests for the target. If at all possible, this documentation should show how
> to run Rust programs and tests for the target using emulation, to allow
> anyone to do so. If the target cannot be feasibly emulated, the documentation
> should explain how to obtain and work with physical hardware, cloud systems,
> or equivalent.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/platform-support/armv7a-none-eabi.html was added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146419/. It covers the `-eabi` and the `-eabihf` targets.
> - The target must document its baseline expectations for the features or
> versions of CPUs, operating systems, libraries, runtime environments, and
> similar.
I believe it does.
> - If introducing a new tier 2 or higher target that is identical to an existing
> Rust target except for the baseline expectations for the features or versions
> of CPUs, operating systems, libraries, runtime environments, and similar,
> then the proposed target must document to the satisfaction of the approving
> teams why the specific difference in baseline expectations provides
> sufficient value to justify a separate target.
It uses very similar FPUs to `armv7r-none-eabihf` but is otherwise the same as `armv7a-none-eabi`.
> - Tier 2 targets must not leave any significant portions of `core` or the
> standard library unimplemented or stubbed out, unless they cannot possibly be
> supported on the target.
It has a full libcore, as per the other arm*-none-* targets.
> - The code generation backend for the target should not have deficiencies that
> invalidate Rust safety properties, as evaluated by the Rust compiler team.
It should be the same backend as `armv7r-none-eabihf` and friends, except for FPU support, which is already covered in `thumbv8m.main-none-eabihf`. There are no issues that I know of.
> - If the target supports C code, and the target has an interoperable calling
> convention for C code, the Rust target must support that C calling convention
> for the platform via `extern "C"`. The C calling convention does not need to
> be the default Rust calling convention for the target, however.
The ABI is EABI, the same as many other Arm targets.
> - The target must build reliably in CI, for all components that Rust's CI
> considers mandatory.
The https://github.com/rust-embedded/cortex-ar repository has been changed in https://github.com/rust-embedded/cortex-ar/pull/57 to build this target with `-Zbuild-std=core`. Locally it seems fine.
> - The approving teams may additionally require that a subset of tests pass in
> CI, such as enough to build a functional "hello world" program, `./x.py test
> --no-run`, or equivalent "smoke tests". In particular, this requirement may
> apply if the target builds host tools, or if the tests in question provide
> substantial value via early detection of critical problems.
There are no no-std tests in the tree that I'm aware of.
> - Building the target in CI must not take substantially longer than the current
> slowest target in CI, and should not substantially raise the maintenance
> burden of the CI infrastructure. This requirement is subjective, to be
> evaluated by the infrastructure team, and will take the community importance
> of the target into account.
Building libcore is quite fast.
> - Tier 2 targets should, if at all possible, support cross-compiling. Tier 2
> targets should not require using the target as the host for builds, even if
> the target supports host tools.
It does.
> - In addition to the legal requirements for all targets (specified in the tier
> 3 requirements), because a tier 2 target typically involves the Rust project
> building and supplying various compiled binaries, incorporating the target
> and redistributing any resulting compiled binaries (e.g. built libraries,
> host tools if any) must not impose any onerous license requirements on any
> members of the Rust project, including infrastructure team members and those
> operating CI systems. This is a subjective requirement, to be evaluated by
> the approving teams.
Just libcore required (and liballoc). No known issues here.
> - Tier 2 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or
> other developers in the community, to ensure that tests pass for the target.
Noted
> - The target maintainers should regularly run the testsuite for the target
The https://github.com/rust-embedded/cortex-ar repository will be changed to use the rustup component when available.
> and should fix any test failures in a reasonably timely fashion.
Noted
Promote armv8r-none-eabihf target to Tier 2
This PR promotes armv8r-none-eabihf to Tier 2, joining armv7r-none-eabi, armv7r-none-eabihf and armv7a-none-eabi.
This PR wil be rebased once https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146419 completes the queue.
> - A tier 2 target must have value to people other than its maintainers. (It may
> still be a niche target, but it must not be exclusively useful for an
> inherently closed group.)
The `armv8r-none-eabihf` target is for the Arm Cortex-R52 processor, as found in a number of Automotive SoCs that have just been released, or are about to be released. Currently SoCs are available from NXP and Renesas.
>- A tier 2 target must have a designated team of developers (the "target
> maintainers") available to consult on target-specific build-breaking issues,
> or if necessary to develop target-specific language or library implementation
> details. This team must have at least 2 developers.
The Embedded Devices Working Group's Arm Team have just started maintaining this target.
> - The target must not place undue burden on Rust developers not specifically
> concerned with that target. Rust developers are expected to not gratuitously
> break a tier 2 target, but are not expected to become experts in every tier 2
> target, and are not expected to provide target-specific implementations for
> every tier 2 target.
This target is highly similar to a number of existing Tier 2 targets, including `armv7r-none-eabihf` and so it should not add undue burden.
> - The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how
> to build for the target using cross-compilation, and explaining how to run
> tests for the target. If at all possible, this documentation should show how
> to run Rust programs and tests for the target using emulation, to allow
> anyone to do so. If the target cannot be feasibly emulated, the documentation
> should explain how to obtain and work with physical hardware, cloud systems,
> or equivalent.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/platform-support/armv8r-none-eabihf.html exists and was updated in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146419/
> - The target must document its baseline expectations for the features or
> versions of CPUs, operating systems, libraries, runtime environments, and
> similar.
I believe it does.
> - If introducing a new tier 2 or higher target that is identical to an existing
> Rust target except for the baseline expectations for the features or versions
> of CPUs, operating systems, libraries, runtime environments, and similar,
> then the proposed target must document to the satisfaction of the approving
> teams why the specific difference in baseline expectations provides
> sufficient value to justify a separate target.
The Armv8-R architecture introduces a new FPU type, the fp-armv8, and so this requires a unique target.
> - Tier 2 targets must not leave any significant portions of `core` or the
> standard library unimplemented or stubbed out, unless they cannot possibly be
> supported on the target.
It has a full libcore, as per the other arm*-none-* targets.
> - The code generation backend for the target should not have deficiencies that
> invalidate Rust safety properties, as evaluated by the Rust compiler team.
It should be the same backend as `armv7r-none-eabihf` and friends, except for FPU support, which is already covered in `thumbv8m.main-none-eabihf`. There are no issues that I know of.
> - If the target supports C code, and the target has an interoperable calling
> convention for C code, the Rust target must support that C calling convention
> for the platform via `extern "C"`. The C calling convention does not need to
> be the default Rust calling convention for the target, however.
The ABI is EABI, the same as many other Arm targets.
> - The target must build reliably in CI, for all components that Rust's CI
> considers mandatory.
The https://github.com/rust-embedded/cortex-ar repository regularly builds this target with `-Zbuild-std=core` and it seems fine.
> - The approving teams may additionally require that a subset of tests pass in
> CI, such as enough to build a functional "hello world" program, `./x.py test
> --no-run`, or equivalent "smoke tests". In particular, this requirement may
> apply if the target builds host tools, or if the tests in question provide
> substantial value via early detection of critical problems.
There are no no-std tests in the tree that I'm aware of.
> - Building the target in CI must not take substantially longer than the current
> slowest target in CI, and should not substantially raise the maintenance
> burden of the CI infrastructure. This requirement is subjective, to be
> evaluated by the infrastructure team, and will take the community importance
> of the target into account.
Building libcore is quite fast.
> - Tier 2 targets should, if at all possible, support cross-compiling. Tier 2
> targets should not require using the target as the host for builds, even if
> the target supports host tools.
It does.
> - In addition to the legal requirements for all targets (specified in the tier
> 3 requirements), because a tier 2 target typically involves the Rust project
> building and supplying various compiled binaries, incorporating the target
> and redistributing any resulting compiled binaries (e.g. built libraries,
> host tools if any) must not impose any onerous license requirements on any
> members of the Rust project, including infrastructure team members and those
> operating CI systems. This is a subjective requirement, to be evaluated by
> the approving teams.
Just libcore required (and liballoc). No known issues here.
> - Tier 2 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or
> other developers in the community, to ensure that tests pass for the target.
Noted
> - The target maintainers should regularly run the testsuite for the target
The https://github.com/rust-embedded/cortex-ar repository will be changed to use the rustup component when available.
> and should fix any test failures in a reasonably timely fashion.
Noted
Regression test for const promotion with Option<Ordering>
https://rust.godbolt.org/z/EjxqE8WcTFixesrust-lang/rust#139093
Add a regression test to ensure that comparing `Option<Ordering>` to
`Some(Ordering::Equal)` does not trigger unnecessary const promotion
in MIR.
Previously, inlined constants like `Some(Ordering::Equal)` would get
promoted, leading to more complex MIR and redundant LLVM IR checks.
This test verifies that both the direct form and the `let`-binding form
now generate equivalent, simplified MIR.
r? cjgillot
