lint: add bad opt access internal lint
Prompted by [Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/sess.2Ecrate_types.28.29.20vs.20sess.2Eopts.2Ecrate_types/near/290682847).
Some command-line options accessible through `sess.opts` are best accessed through wrapper functions on `Session`, `TyCtxt` or otherwise, rather than through field access on the option struct in the `Session`.
Adds a new lint which triggers on those options that should be accessed through a wrapper function so that this is prohibited. Options are annotated with a new attribute `rustc_lint_opt_deny_field_access` which can specify the error message (i.e. "use this other function instead") to be emitted.
A simpler alternative would be to simply rename the options in the option type so that it is clear they should not be used, however this doesn't prevent uses, just discourages them. Another alternative would be to make the option fields private, and adding accessor functions on the option types, however the wrapper functions sometimes rely on additional state from `Session` or `TyCtxt` which wouldn't be available in an function on the option type, so the accessor would simply make the field available and its use would be discouraged too.
**Leave a comment if there's an option I should add this to.**
Deeply deny fn and raw ptrs in const generics
I think this is right -- just because we wrap a fn ptr in a wrapper type does not mean we should allow it in a const parameter.
We now reject both of these in the same way:
```
#![feature(adt_const_params)]
#[derive(Eq, PartialEq)]
struct Wrapper();
fn foo<const W: Wrapper>() {}
fn foo2<const F: fn()>() {}
```
This does regress one test (`src/test/ui/consts/refs_check_const_eq-issue-88384.stderr`), but I'm not sure it should've passed in the first place.
cc: ``@b-naber`` who introduced that test^
fixes#99641
Some command-line options accessible through `sess.opts` are best
accessed through wrapper functions on `Session`, `TyCtxt` or otherwise,
rather than through field access on the option struct in the `Session`.
Adds a new lint which triggers on those options that should be accessed
through a wrapper function so that this is prohibited. Options are
annotated with a new attribute `rustc_lint_opt_deny_field_access` which
can specify the error message (i.e. "use this other function instead")
to be emitted.
A simpler alternative would be to simply rename the options in the
option type so that it is clear they should not be used, however this
doesn't prevent uses, just discourages them. Another alternative would
be to make the option fields private, and adding accessor functions on
the option types, however the wrapper functions sometimes rely on
additional state from `Session` or `TyCtxt` which wouldn't be available
in an function on the option type, so the accessor would simply make the
field available and its use would be discouraged too.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
If an internal lint uses `typeck_results` or similar queries then that
can result in rustdoc checking code that it shouldn't (e.g. from other
platforms) and emit compilation errors.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
Check that RPITs constrained by a recursive call in a closure are compatible
Fixes#99073
Adapts a similar visitor pattern to `find_opaque_ty_constraints` (that we use to check TAITs), but with some changes:
0. Only walk the "OnlyBody" children, instead of all items in the RPIT's defining scope
1. Only walk through the body's children if we found a constraining usage
2. Don't actually do any inference, just do a comparison and error if they're mismatched
----
r? `@oli-obk` -- you know all this impl-trait stuff best... is this the right approach? I can explain the underlying issue better if you'd like, in case that might reveal a better solution. Not sure if it's possible to gather up the closure's defining usages of the RPIT while borrowck'ing the outer function, that might be a better place to put this check...
Update cargo
5 commits in d8d30a75376f78bb0fabe3d28ee9d87aa8035309..85b500ccad8cd0b63995fd94a03ddd4b83f7905b
2022-07-19 13:59:17 +0000 to 2022-07-24 21:10:46 +0000
- Make the empty rustc-wrapper test more explicit. (rust-lang/cargo#10899)
- expand RUSTC_WRAPPER docs (rust-lang/cargo#10896)
- Stabilize Workspace Inheritance (rust-lang/cargo#10859)
- Fix typo in unstable docs: s/PROGJCT/PROJECT/ (rust-lang/cargo#10890)
- refactor(source): Open query API for adding more types of queries (rust-lang/cargo#10883)
rustdoc: do not allocate String when writing path full name
No idea if this makes any perf difference, but it just seems like premature pessimisation to use String when str will do.
passes: port more of `check_attr` module
Continues from #99213.
Port more diagnostics in `rustc_passes::check_attr` to using the diagnostic derive and translation machinery.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Add a clickable link to the layout section
The layout section (activated by `--show-type-layout`) is currently not linkable to (outside of chrome's link to text feature). This PR makes it linkable via `#layout`.
Prefer visibility map parents that are not `doc(hidden)` first
Far simpler approach to #98876.
This only fixes the case where the parent is `doc(hidden)`, not where the child is `doc(hidden)` since I don't know how to get the attrs on the import statement given a `ModChild`... I'll try to follow up with that, but this is a good first step.
codegen: use new {re,de,}allocator annotations in llvm
This obviates the patch that teaches LLVM internals about
_rust_{re,de}alloc functions by putting annotations directly in the IR
for the optimizer.
The sole test change is required to anchor FileCheck to the body of the
`box_uninitialized` method, so it doesn't see the `allocalign` on
`__rust_alloc` and get mad about the string `alloca` showing up. Since I
was there anyway, I added some checks on the attributes to prove the
right attributes got set.
r? `@nikic`
Fix some broken link fragments.
An exception for link fragments starting with `-` was added in #49590. However, it is not clear what issues were encountered at the time. Perhaps those were fixed in the meantime.
This removes the exception, and fixes a couple of broken links that were skipped due to it.
rustdoc: Add support for `#[rustc_must_implement_one_of]`
This PR adds support for `#[rustc_must_implement_one_of]` attribute added in #92164. There is a desire to eventually use this attribute of `Read`, so making it show up in docs is a good thing.
I "stole" the styling from cfg notes, not sure what would be a proper styling. Currently it looks like this:
<details><summary>Code to reproduce</summary>
<p>
```rust
#![feature(rustc_attrs)]
#[rustc_must_implement_one_of(a, b)]
pub trait Trait {
fn req();
fn a(){ Self::b() }
fn b(){ Self::a() }
}
```
</p>
</details>
This obviates the patch that teaches LLVM internals about
_rust_{re,de}alloc functions by putting annotations directly in the IR
for the optimizer.
The sole test change is required to anchor FileCheck to the body of the
`box_uninitialized` method, so it doesn't see the `allocalign` on
`__rust_alloc` and get mad about the string `alloca` showing up. Since I
was there anyway, I added some checks on the attributes to prove the
right attributes got set.
While we're here, we also emit allocator attributes on
__rust_alloc_zeroed. This should allow LLVM to perform more
optimizations for zeroed blocks, and probably fixes#90032. [This
comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/24194#issuecomment-308791157)
mentions "weird UB-like behaviour with bitvec iterators in
rustc_data_structures" so we may need to back this change out if things
go wrong.
The new test cases require LLVM 15, so we copy them into LLVM
14-supporting versions, which we can delete when we drop LLVM 14.
Use full type name instead of just saying `impl Trait` in "captures lifetime" error
I think this is very useful, especially when there's >1 `impl Trait`, and it just means passing around a bit more info that we already have access to.
Remove erroneous E0133 code from an error message.
This error message is about `derive` and `packed`, but E0133 is for
"Unsafe code was used outside of an unsafe function or block".
r? ``@estebank``
interpret, ptr_offset_from: refactor and test too-far-apart check
We didn't have any tests for the "too far apart" message, and indeed that check mostly relied on the in-bounds check and was otherwise probably not entirely correct... so I rewrote that check, and it is before the in-bounds check so we can test it separately.
Restore `Opaque` behavior to coherence check
Fixes#99663.
This broke in 84c3fcd2a0. I'm not exactly certain that adding this behavior back is necessarily correct, but at least the UI test I provided may stimulate some thoughts.
I think delaying a bug here is certainly not correct in the case of opaques -- if we want to change coherence behavior for opaques, then we should at least be emitting a new error.
r? ``@lcnr``
handle consts with param/infer in `const_eval_resolve` better
This PR addresses [this thread here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99449#discussion_r924141230). Was this the change you were looking for ``@lcnr?``
Interestingly, one test has begun to pass. Was that expected?
r? ``@lcnr``
