Cleanup check-cfg handling in core and std
Follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125296 where we:
- expect any feature cfg in std, due to `#[path]` imports
- move some check-cfg args inside the `build.rs` as per Cargo recommendation
- and replace the fake Cargo feature `"restricted-std"` by the custom cfg `restricted_std`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125296#issuecomment-2127009301
r? `@bjorn3` (maybe, feel free to re-roll)
Migrate `run-make/issue-53964` to `rmake`
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
This is extremely similar to #125146. Could it be interesting to merge the two in some way? This one seems to do the same thing as the #125146, but with an added check that a useless lint is not shown.
Rewrite native thread-local storage
(part of #110897)
The current native thread-local storage implementation has become quite messy, uses indescriptive names and unnecessarily adds code to the macro expansion. This PR tries to fix that by using a new implementation that also allows more layout optimizations and potentially increases performance by eliminating unnecessary TLS accesses.
This does not change the recursive initialization behaviour I described in [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/110897#issuecomment-1525705682), so it should be a library-only change. Changing that behaviour should be quite easy now, however.
r? `@m-ou-se`
`@rustbot` label +T-libs
Rewrite `core-no-oom-handling`, `issue-24445` and `issue-38237` `run-make` tests to new `rmake.rs` format
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
The test which is now called `non-pie-thread-local` has an unexplained "only-linux" flag. Could it be worth trying to remove it and changing the CI to test non-Linux platforms on it?
Expand `for_loops_over_fallibles` lint to lint on fallibles behind references.
Extends the scope of the (warn-by-default) lint `for_loops_over_fallibles` from just `for _ in x` where `x: Option<_>/Result<_, _>` to also cover `x: &(mut) Option<_>/Result<_>`
```rs
fn main() {
// Current lints
for _ in Some(42) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// New lints
for _ in &Some(42) {}
for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// Should not lint
for _ in Some(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter_mut() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter_mut() {}
}
```
<details><summary><code>cargo build</code> diff</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/old.out b/new.out
index 84215aa..ca195a7 100644
--- a/old.out
+++ b/new.out
`@@` -1,33 +1,93 `@@`
warning: for loop over an `Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:3:14
|
3 | for _ in Some(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(for_loops_over_fallibles)]` on by default
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
3 | while let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
3 | if let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
warning: for loop over a `Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:4:14
|
4 | for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
4 | while let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
4 | if let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
-warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 2 warnings
- Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.04s
+warning: for loop over a `&Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:7:14
+ |
+7 | for _ in &Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+7 | while let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+7 | if let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:8:14
+ |
+8 | for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+8 | while let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+8 | if let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:9:14
+ |
+9 | for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+9 | while let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+9 | if let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:10:14
+ |
+10 | for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+10 | while let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+10 | if let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 6 warnings
+ Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.02s
```
</details>
-----
Question:
* ~~Currently, the article `an` is used for `&Option`, and `&mut Option` in the lint diagnostic, since that's what `Option` uses. Is this okay or should it be changed? (likewise, `a` is used for `&Result` and `&mut Result`)~~ The article `a` is used for `&Option`, `&mut Option`, `&Result`, `&mut Result` and (as before) `Result`. Only `Option` uses `an` (as before).
`@rustbot` label +A-lint
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125043 (reference type safety invariant docs: clarification)
- #125306 (Force the inner coroutine of an async closure to `move` if the outer closure is `move` and `FnOnce`)
- #125355 (Use Backtrace::force_capture instead of Backtrace::capture in rustc_log)
- #125382 (rustdoc: rename `issue-\d+.rs` tests to have meaningful names (part 7))
- #125391 (Minor serialize/span tweaks)
- #125395 (Remove unnecessary `.md` from the documentation sidebar)
- #125399 (Stop using `to_hir_binop` in codegen)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
miri: rename intrinsic_fallback_checks_ub to intrinsic_fallback_is_spec
Checking UB is not the only concern, we also have to make sure we are not losing out on non-determinism.
r? ``@oli-obk`` (not urgent, take your time)
clock_gettime support CLOCK_REALTIME/CLOCK_MONOTONIC clockid_t.
localtime_r is supported only tm struct is more limited than other
supported platforms.
Add a footer in FileEncoder and check for it in MemDecoder
We have a few reports of ICEs due to decoding failures, where the fault does not lie with the compiler. The goal of this PR is to add some very lightweight and on-by-default validation to the compiler's outputs. If validation fails, we emit a fatal error for rmeta files in general that mentions the path that didn't load, and for incremental compilation artifacts we emit a verbose warning that tries to explain the situation and treat the artifacts as outdated.
The validation currently implemented here is very crude, and yet I think we have 11 ICE reports currently open (you can find them by searching issues for `1002111927320821928687967599834759150`) which this simple validation would have detected. The structure of the code changes here should permit the addition of further validation code, such as a checksum, if it is merited. I would like to have code to detect corruption such as reported in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124719, but I'm not yet sure how to do that efficiently, and this PR is already a good size.
The ICE reports I have in mind that this PR would have smoothed over are:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124469https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123352https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123376 [^1]
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99763https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93900.
---
[^1]: This one might be a compiler bug, but even if it is I think the workflow described is pushing the envelope of what we can support. This issue is one of the reasons this warning still asks people to file an issue.
offset: allow zero-byte offset on arbitrary pointers
As per prior `@rust-lang/opsem` [discussion](https://github.com/rust-lang/opsem-team/issues/10) and [FCP](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/472#issuecomment-1793409130):
- Zero-sized reads and writes are allowed on all sufficiently aligned pointers, including the null pointer
- Inbounds-offset-by-zero is allowed on all pointers, including the null pointer
- `offset_from` on two pointers derived from the same allocation is always allowed when they have the same address
This removes surprising UB (in particular, even C++ allows "nullptr + 0", which we currently disallow), and it brings us one step closer to an important theoretical property for our semantics ("provenance monotonicity": if operations are valid on bytes without provenance, then adding provenance can't make them invalid).
The minimum LLVM we require (v17) includes https://reviews.llvm.org/D154051, so we can finally implement this.
The `offset_from` change is needed to maintain the equivalence with `offset`: if `let ptr2 = ptr1.offset(N)` is well-defined, then `ptr2.offset_from(ptr1)` should be well-defined and return N. Now consider the case where N is 0 and `ptr1` dangles: we want to still allow offset_from here.
I think we should change offset_from further, but that's a separate discussion.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65108
[Tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117945) | [T-lang summary](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117329#issuecomment-1951981106)
Cc `@nikic`
