Stabilize "RangeFrom" patterns in 1.55
Implements a partial stabilization of #67264 and #37854.
Reference PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/900
# Stabilization Report
This stabilizes the `X..` pattern, shown as such, offering an exhaustive match for unsigned integers:
```rust
match x as u32 {
0 => println!("zero!"),
1.. => println!("positive number!"),
}
```
Currently if a Rust author wants to write such a match on an integer, they must use `1..={integer}::MAX` . By allowing a "RangeFrom" style pattern, this simplifies the match to not require the MAX path and thus not require specifically repeating the type inside the match, allowing for easier refactoring. This is particularly useful for instances like the above case, where different behavior on "0" vs. "1 or any positive number" is desired, and the actual MAX is unimportant.
Notably, this excepts slice patterns which include half-open ranges from stabilization, as the wisdom of those is still subject to some debate.
## Practical Applications
Instances of this specific usage have appeared in the compiler:
16143d1067/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/inhabitedness/mod.rs (L219)673d0db5e3/compiler/rustc_ty_utils/src/ty.rs (L524)
And I have noticed there are also a handful of "in the wild" users who have deployed it to similar effect, especially in the case of rejecting any value of a certain number or greater. It simply makes it much more ergonomic to write an irrefutable match, as done in Katholieke Universiteit Leuven's [SCALE and MAMBA project](05e5db00d5/WebAssembly/scale_std/src/fixed_point.rs (L685-L695)).
## Tests
There were already many tests in [src/test/ui/half-open-range/patterns](90a2e5e3fe/src/test/ui/half-open-range-patterns), as well as [generic pattern tests that test the `exclusive_range_pattern` feature](673d0db5e3/src/test/ui/pattern/usefulness/integer-ranges/reachability.rs), many dating back to the feature's introduction and remaining standing to this day. However, this stabilization comes with some additional tests to explore the... sometimes interesting behavior of interactions with other patterns. e.g. There is, at least, a mild diagnostic improvement in some edge cases, because before now, the pattern `0..=(5+1)` encounters the `half_open_range_patterns` feature gate and can thus emit the request to enable the feature flag, while also emitting the "inclusive range with no end" diagnostic. There is no intent to allow an `X..=` pattern that I am aware of, so removing the flag request is a strict improvement. The arrival of the `J | K` "or" pattern also enables some odd formations.
Some of the behavior tested for here is derived from experiments in this [Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=58777b3c715c85165ac4a70d93efeefc) example, linked at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67264#issuecomment-812770692, which may be useful to reference to observe the current behavior more closely.
In addition tests constituting an explanation of the "slicing range patterns" syntax issue are included in this PR.
## Desiderata
The exclusive range patterns and half-open range patterns are fairly strongly requested by many authors, as they make some patterns much more natural to write, but there is disagreement regarding the "closed" exclusive range pattern or the "RangeTo" pattern, especially where it creates "off by one" gaps in the presence of a "catch-all" wildcard case. Also, there are obviously no range analyses in place that will force diagnostics for e.g. highly overlapping matches. I believe these should be warned on, ideally, and I think it would be reasonable to consider such a blocker to stabilizing this feature, but there is no technical issue with the feature as-is from the purely syntactic perspective as such overlapping or missed matches can already be generated today with such a catch-all case. And part of the "point" of the feature, at least from my view, is to make it easier to omit wildcard matches: a pattern with such an "open" match produces an irrefutable match and does not need the wild card case, making it easier to benefit from exhaustiveness checking.
## History
- Implemented:
- Partially via exclusive ranges: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/35712
- Fully with half-open ranges: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/67258
- Unresolved Questions:
- The precedence concerns of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48501 were considered as likely requiring adjustment but probably wanting a uniform consistent change across all pattern styles, given https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67264#issuecomment-720711656, but it is still unknown what changes might be desired
- How we want to handle slice patterns in ranges seems to be an open question still, as witnessed in the discussion of this PR!
I checked but I couldn't actually find an RFC for this, and given "approved provisionally by lang team without an RFC", I believe this might require an RFC before it can land? Unsure of procedure here, on account of this being stabilizing a subset of a feature of syntax.
r? `@scottmcm`
Add clobber-only register classes for asm!
These are needed to properly express a function call ABI using a clobber
list, even though we don't support passing actual values into/out of
these registers.
These are needed to properly express a function call ABI using a clobber
list, even though we don't support passing actual values into/out of
these registers.
Update the documentation of `-C force-unwind-tables` for #83482
`panic=unwind` does not require `force-unwind-tables` to be "yes" anymore.
I forgot to update this in #83482.
BPF target support
This adds `bpfel-unknown-none` and `bpfeb-unknown-none`, two new no_std targets that generate little and big endian BPF. The approach taken is very similar to the cuda target, where `TargetOptions::obj_is_bitcode` is enabled and code generation is done by the linker.
I added the targets to `dist-various-2`. There are [some tests](https://github.com/alessandrod/bpf-linker/tree/main/tests/assembly) in bpf-linker and I'm planning to add more. Those are currently not ran as part of rust CI.
Remove `doc(include)`
This nightly feature is redundant now that `extended_key_value_attributes` is stable (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83366). `@rust-lang/rustdoc` not sure if you think this needs FCP; there was already an FCP in #82539, but technically it was for deprecating, not removing the feature altogether.
This should not be merged before #83366.
cc `@petrochenkov`
Support for force-warns
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85512.
This PR adds a new command line option `force-warns` which will force the provided lints to warn even if they are allowed by some other mechanism such as `#![allow(warnings)]`.
Some remaining issues:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85512 mentions that `force-warns` should also be capable of taking lint groups instead of individual lints. This is not implemented.
* If a lint has a higher warning level than `warn`, this will cause that lint to warn instead. We probably want to allow the lint to error if it is set to a higher lint and is not allowed somewhere else.
* One test is currently ignored because it's not working - when a deny-by-default lint is allowed, it does not currently warn under `force-warns`. I'm not sure why, but I wanted to get this in before the weekend.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Add documentation for aarch64-apple-ios-sim target
Documentation as requested for [MCP 428](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/428) to promote this target to Tier 2.
Currently it calls out that it's Tier 3. That should be changed if this target is promoted, but this PR could also land before that.
Note: probably should get signoff from the compiler team based on that MCP.
# Stabilization report
## Summary
This stabilizes using macro expansion in key-value attributes, like so:
```rust
#[doc = include_str!("my_doc.md")]
struct S;
#[path = concat!(env!("OUT_DIR"), "/generated.rs")]
mod m;
```
See the changes to the reference for details on what macros are allowed;
see Petrochenkov's excellent blog post [on internals](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/macro-expansion-points-in-attributes/11455)
for alternatives that were considered and rejected ("why accept no more
and no less?")
This has been available on nightly since 1.50 with no major issues.
## Notes
### Accepted syntax
The parser accepts arbitrary Rust expressions in this position, but any expression other than a macro invocation will ultimately lead to an error because it is not expected by the built-in expression forms (e.g., `#[doc]`). Note that decorators and the like may be able to observe other expression forms.
### Expansion ordering
Expansion of macro expressions in "inert" attributes occurs after decorators have executed, analogously to macro expressions appearing in the function body or other parts of decorator input.
There is currently no way for decorators to accept macros in key-value position if macro expansion must be performed before the decorator executes (if the macro can simply be copied into the output for later expansion, that can work).
## Test cases
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/attributes/key-value-expansion-on-mac.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/rustdoc/external-doc.rs
The feature has also been dogfooded extensively in the compiler and
standard library:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83329
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83230
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/82641
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80534
## Implementation history
- Initial proposal: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55414#issuecomment-554005412
- Experiment to see how much code it would break: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/67121
- Preliminary work to restrict expansion that would conflict with this
feature: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77271
- Initial implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/78837
- Fix for an ICE: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80563
## Unresolved Questions
~~https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83366#issuecomment-805180738 listed some concerns, but they have been resolved as of this final report.~~
## Additional Information
There are two workarounds that have a similar effect for `#[doc]`
attributes on nightly. One is to emulate this behavior by using a limited version of this feature that was stabilized for historical reasons:
```rust
macro_rules! forward_inner_docs {
($e:expr => $i:item) => {
#[doc = $e]
$i
};
}
forward_inner_docs!(include_str!("lib.rs") => struct S {});
```
This also works for other attributes (like `#[path = concat!(...)]`).
The other is to use `doc(include)`:
```rust
#![feature(external_doc)]
#[doc(include = "lib.rs")]
struct S {}
```
The first works, but is non-trivial for people to discover, and
difficult to read and maintain. The second is a strange special-case for
a particular use of the macro. This generalizes it to work for any use
case, not just including files.
I plan to remove `doc(include)` when this is stabilized. The
`forward_inner_docs` workaround will still compile without warnings, but
I expect it to be used less once it's no longer necessary.
This adds a new lint to `rustc` that is used in rustdoc when a code
block is empty or cannot be parsed as valid Rust code.
Previously this was unconditionally a warning. As such some
documentation comments were (unknowingly) abusing this to pass despite
the `-Dwarnings` used when compiling `rustc`, this should not be the
case anymore.
Add asm!() support for PowerPC
This includes GPRs and FPRs only.
Note that this does not include PowerPC64.
For my reference, this was mostly duplicated from PR #73214.
