Transition unsupported naked functions future incompatibility lint into
an error:
* Naked functions must contain a single inline assembly block.
Introduced as future incompatibility lint in 1.50 #79653.
Change into an error fixes a soundness issue described in #32489.
* Naked functions must not use any forms of inline attribute.
Introduced as future incompatibility lint in 1.56 #87652.
They are also removed from the prelude as per the decision in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87228.
stdarch and compiler-builtins are updated to work with the new, stable
asm! and global_asm! macros.
Remove trailing semicolon from macro call span
Macro call site spans are now less surprising/more consistent since they no longer contain a semicolon after the macro call.
The downside is that we need to do a little guesswork to get the semicolon in diagnostics. But this should not be noticeable since it is rare for the semicolon to not immediately follow the macro call.
Add support for clobber_abi to asm!
This PR adds the `clobber_abi` feature that was proposed in #81092.
Fixes#81092
cc `@rust-lang/wg-inline-asm`
r? `@nagisa`
Lint against named asm labels
This adds a deny-by-default lint to prevent the use of named labels in inline `asm!`. Without a solution to #81088 about whether the compiler should rewrite named labels or a special syntax for labels, a lint against them should prevent users from writing assembly that could break for internal compiler reasons, such as inlining or anything else that could change the number of actual inline assembly blocks emitted.
This does **not** resolve the issue with rewriting labels, that still needs a decision if the compiler should do any more work to try to make them work.
Move naked function ABI check to its own lint
This check was previously categorized under the lint named
`UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`. That lint is future incompatible and will
be turned into an error in a future release. However, as defined in the
Constrained Naked Functions RFC, this check should only be a warning.
This is because it is possible for a naked function to be implemented in
such a way that it does not break even the undefined ABI. For example, a
`jmp` to a `const`.
Therefore, this patch defines a new lint named
`UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI` which contains just this single check.
Unlike `UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`, `UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI`
will not be converted to an error in the future.
rust-lang/rfcs#2774rust-lang/rfcs#2972
Validate FFI-safety warnings on naked functions
Test that FFI-safety warnings don't get accidentally dropped on naked
functions. The big picture is that if you implement a naked function
with the Rust ABI you'll get a warning. Further, if you implement a
naked function with a standardized ABI, but use non-FFI-safe types you
will still get a warning.
rust-lang/rfcs#2774rust-lang/rfcs#2972
cc ``````@joshtriplett`````` ``````@Amanieu`````` ``````@haraldh``````
In most calling conventions, accessing function parameters may require
stack access. However, naked functions have no assembly prelude to set
up stack access. This is why naked functions may only contain a single
`asm!()` block. All parameter access is done inside the `asm!()` block,
so we cannot validate the liveness of the input parameters. Therefore,
we should disable the lint for naked functions.
rust-lang/rfcs#2774rust-lang/rfcs#2972
This test proves that naked functions are treated the same as regular
functions regarding unused function parameters. We will change this
behavior in the next patch.
This check was previously categorized under the lint named
`UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`. That lint is future incompatible and will
be turned into an error in a future release. However, as defined in the
Constrained Naked Functions RFC, this check should only be a warning.
This is because it is possible for a naked function to be implemented in
such a way that it does not break even the undefined ABI. For example, a
`jmp` to a `const`.
Therefore, this patch defines a new lint named
`UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI` which contains just this single check.
Unlike `UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`, `UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI`
will not be converted to an error in the future.
rust-lang/rfcs#2774rust-lang/rfcs#2972
