Don't use another main test file as auxiliary
In this case, the exact extern crate isn't very important, it just needs to not be another main test file.
This is part of the changes needed to address the spurious failures from a main test `../removing-extern-crate.rs` being both an auxiliary and a main test file, causing fs races due to multiple `rustc` processes in multiple test threads trying to build the main test file both as a main test and also as an auxiliary at around the same time.
Part 1 of rust-lang/rust#144237.
r? ``@RalfJung`` (or compiler)
Mitigate `#[align]` name resolution ambiguity regression with a rename
Mitigates beta regression rust-lang/rust#143834 after a beta backport.
### Background on the beta regression
The name resolution regression arises due to rust-lang/rust#142507 adding a new feature-gated built-in attribute named `#[align]`. However, unfortunately even [introducing new feature-gated unstable built-in attributes can break user code](https://www.github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134963) such as
```rs
macro_rules! align {
() => {
/* .. */
};
}
pub(crate) use align; // `use` here becomes ambiguous
```
### Mitigation approach
This PR renames `#[align]` to `#[rustc_align]` to mitigate the beta regression by:
1. Undoing the introduction of a new built-in attribute with a common name, i.e. `#[align]`.
2. Renaming `#[align]` to `#[rustc_align]`. The renamed attribute being `rustc_align` will not introduce new stable breakages, as attributes beginning with `rustc` are reserved and perma-unstable. This does mean existing nightly code using `fn_align` feature will additionally need to specify `#![feature(rustc_attrs)]`.
This PR is very much a short-term mitigation to alleviate time pressure from having to fully fix the current limitation of inevitable name resolution regressions that would arise from adding any built-in attributes. Long-term solutions are discussed in [#t-lang > namespacing macro attrs to reduce conflicts with new adds](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/213817-t-lang/topic/namespacing.20macro.20attrs.20to.20reduce.20conflicts.20with.20new.20adds/with/529249622).
### Alternative mitigation options
[Various mitigation options were considered during the compiler triage meeting](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/143834#issuecomment-3084415277), and those consideration are partly reproduced here:
- Reverting the PR doesn't seem very minimal/trivial, and carries risks of its own.
- Rename to a less-common but aim-to-stabilization name is itself not safe nor convenient, because (1) that risks introducing new regressions (i.e. ambiguity against the new name), and (2) lang would have to FCP the new name hastily for the mitigation to land timely and have a chance to be backported. This also makes the path towards stabilization annoying.
- Rename the attribute to a rustc attribute, which will be perma-unstable and does not cause new ambiguities in stable code.
- This alleviates the time pressure to address *this* regression, or for lang to have to rush an FCP for some new name that can still break user code.
- This avoids backing out a whole implementation.
### Review advice
This PR is best reviewed commit-by-commit.
- Commit 1 adds a test `tests/ui/attributes/fn-align-nameres-ambiguity-143834.rs` which demonstrates the current name resolution regression re. `align`. This test fails against current master.
- Commit 2 carries out the renames and test reblesses. Notably, commit 2 will cause `tests/ui/attributes/fn-align-nameres-ambiguity-143834.rs` to change from fail (nameres regression) to pass.
This PR, if the approach still seems acceptable, will need a beta-backport to address the beta regression.
rustc_public: de-StableMIR-ize
This PR updates relevant docs about StableMIR, basically just rewording StableMIR/SMIR to rustc_public/rustc_public's IR.
The README.md in the `rustc_public` crate is out-dated. I plan to rewrite it after we fork rustc_public into its own repository.
This PR doesn't change the fact that we still use `-Z unpretty=stable-mir` as a rustc parameter for printing the IR, since I feel it's a bit verbose and weird if we use `-Z unpretty=rustc-public-ir`. I was wondering if we can have a short and easy alias for rustc_public's IR.
In this case, the exact extern crate isn't very important.
This is part of the changes needed to address the spurious failures from
a main test `../removing-extern-crate.rs` being both an auxiliary and a
main test file, causing fs races due to multiple `rustc` processes in
multiple test threads trying to build the main test file both as a main
test and also as an auxiliary at around the same time.
tests: Skip supported-crate-types test on musl hosts
This test depends on the target-specific default of crt-static for musl targets. However, running the testsuite on a musl host requires setting `crt-static` to `false`, as it wouldn't otherwise be possible to build rustc. This in turn will enable `-Ctarget-feature=-crt-static` for all tests, mismatching the expected `+crt-static` for the musl target tested in this testcase.
Since this test specifically tests the default value of `crt-static` for the musl target, ignoring it entirely makes more sense than manually setting `-Ctarget-feature=+crt-static` here, but both would be valid approaches.
Ban projecting into SIMD types [MCP838]
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/838
The actual compiler change here is tiny; there's just a bazillion tests to update.
~~Since I'm sure I've missed some, for now~~
~~r ghost~~
try-job: test-various
try-job: x86_64-gnu-nopt
Give a message with a span on MIR validation error
It was handy to get a source+line link for rust-lang/rust#143833, even if it's just to the function and not necessarily to the statement.
r? mir
Fix `-Ctarget-feature`s getting ignored after `crt-static`
The current behaviour introduced by commit a50a3b8e31 would discard any target features specified after `crt-static` (the only member of `RUSTC_SPECIFIC_FEATURES`). This is because it returned instead of continuing processing the next feature.
I wasn't entirely sure how the regression test should look like, but this one should do. If anyone has some suggestions, I'm happy to learn, it's my first test :)
I've confirmed that the test fails without the fix on `powerpc64le-unknown-linux-musl` and `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu`.
cc ``@RalfJung``
And introduce two new directives for ui tests:
* `run-crash`
* `run-fail-or-crash`
Normally a `run-fail` ui test like tests that panic shall not be
terminated by a signal like `SIGABRT`. So begin having that as a hard
requirement.
Some of our current tests do terminate by a signal/crash however.
Introduce and use `run-crash` for those tests. Note that Windows crashes
are not handled by signals but by certain high bits set on the process
exit code. Example exit code for crash on Windows: `0xc000001d`.
Because of this, we define "crash" on all platforms as "not exit with
success and not exit with a regular failure code in the range 1..=127".
Some tests behave differently on different targets:
* Targets without unwind support will abort (crash) instead of exit with
failure code 101 after panicking. As a special case, allow crashes for
`run-fail` tests for such targets.
* Different sanitizer implementations handle detected memory problems
differently. Some abort (crash) the process while others exit with
failure code 1. Introduce and use `run-fail-or-crash` for such tests.
Don't test panic=unwind in panic_main.rs on Fuchsia
````@Enselic```` added a few new test conditions to tests/ui/panics/panic-main.rs in rust-lang/rust#142304, but it is unfortunately causing the test to fail for Fuchsia with the `panic=unwind` modes since we compile Rust for Fuchsia with `panic=abort`. This patch just ignores the test for Fuchsia.
Note that this test might also need to filter out a few other platforms, since another panicking test we exclude from Fuchsia https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/ui/panics/runtime-switch.rs also excludes running on msvc, android, openbsd, and wasm, but I'm not familiar with those platforms so I didn't want to add them here.
cc ````@compile-errors,```` who reviewed the initial PR
From `#[align]` -> `#[rustc_align]`. Attributes starting with `rustc`
are always perma-unstable and feature-gated by `feature(rustc_attrs)`.
See regression RUST-143834.
For the underlying problem where even introducing new feature-gated
unstable built-in attributes can break user code such as
```rs
macro_rules! align {
() => {
/* .. */
};
}
pub(crate) use align; // `use` here becomes ambiguous
```
refer to RUST-134963.
Since the `#[align]` attribute is still feature-gated by
`feature(fn_align)`, we can rename it as a mitigation. Note that
`#[rustc_align]` will obviously mean that current unstable user code
using `feature(fn_aling)` will need additionally `feature(rustc_attrs)`,
but this is a short-term mitigation to buy time, and is expected to be
changed to a better name with less collision potential.
See
<https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bweekly.5D.202025-07-17/near/529290371>
where mitigation options were considered.
Show the offset, length and memory of uninit read errors
r? ``@RalfJung``
I want to improve memory dumps in general. Not sure yet how to do so best within rust diagnostics, but in a perfect world I could generate a dummy in-memory file (that contains the rendered memory dump) that we then can then provide regular rustc `Span`s to. So we'd basically report normal diagnostics for them with squiggly lines and everything.
This test depends on the target-specific behavior of crt-static for musl
targets. However, running the testsuite on a musl host requires
setting `crt-static` to `false`, as it wouldn't otherwise be possible to
build rustc. This in turn will enable `-Ctarget-feature=-crt-static` for
all tests, mismatching the expected `+crt-static` for the musl target
tested in this testcase.
Since this test specifically tests the default value of `crt-static` for
the musl target, ignoring it entirely makes more sense than manually
setting `-Ctarget-feature=+crt-static` here, but both would be valid
approaches.
Signed-off-by: Jens Reidel <adrian@travitia.xyz>
According to
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-volatile-access-to-non-dereferenceable-memory-may-be-well-defined/86303/4,
LLVM allows volatile operations on null and handles it correctly. This
should be allowed in Rust as well, because I/O memory may be hard-coded
to address 0 in some cases, like the AVR chip ATtiny1626.
A test case that ensured a failure when passing null to volatile was
removed, since it's now valid.
Due to the addition of `maybe_is_aligned` to `ub_checks`,
`maybe_is_aligned_and_not_null` was refactored to use it.
docs: revise restrictions on volatile operations
A distinction between usage on Rust memory vs. non-Rust memory was
introduced. Documentation was reworded to explain what that means, and
make explicit that:
- No trapping can occur from volatile operations;
- On Rust memory, all safety rules must be respected;
- On Rust memory, the primary difference from regular access is that
volatile always involves a memory dereference;
- On Rust memory, the only data affected by an operation is the one
pointed to in the argument(s) of the function;
- On Rust memory, provenance follows the same rules as non-volatile
access;
- On non-Rust memory, any address known to not contain Rust memory is
valid (including 0 and usize::MAX);
- On non-Rust memory, no Rust memory may be affected (it is implicit
that any other non-Rust memory may be affected, though, even if not
referenced by the pointer). This should be relevant when, for example,
reading register A causes a flag to change in register B, or writing
to A causes B to change in some way. Everything affected mustn't be
inside an allocation.
- On non-Rust memory, provenance is irrelevant and a pointer with none
can be used in a valid way.
fix: don't lint null as UB for volatile
Also remove a now-unneeded `allow` line.
fix: additional wording nits
Split-up stability_index query
This PR aims to move deprecation and stability processing away from the monolithic `stability_index` query, and directly implement `lookup_{deprecation,stability,body_stability,const_stability}` queries.
The basic idea is to:
- move per-attribute sanity checks into `check_attr.rs`;
- move attribute compatibility checks into the `MissingStabilityAnnotations` visitor;
- progressively dismantle the `Annotator` visitor and the `stability_index` query.
The first commit contains functional change, and now warns when `#[automatically_derived]` is applied on a non-trait impl block. The other commits should not change visible behaviour.
Perf in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143845#issuecomment-3066308630 shows small but consistent improvement, except for unused-warnings case. That case being a stress test, I'm leaning towards accepting the regression.
This PR changes `check_attr`, so has a high conflict rate on that file. This should not cause issues for review.
Make slice comparisons const
This needed a fix for `derive_const`, too, as it wasn't usable in libcore anymore as trait impls need const stability attributes. I think we can't use the same system as normal trait impls while `const_trait_impl` is still unstable.
r? ```@fee1-dead```
cc rust-lang/rust#143800
`tests/ui`: A New Order [0/28]
> [!NOTE]
>
> Intermediate commits are intended to help review, but will be squashed prior to merge.
These are the some last tests that didn’t make it into the main twenty-eightology of PRs. Part of rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? ```@jieyouxu```
Add test for `default_field_values` and `const_default`
Add a test showing `#![feature(default_field_values)]` using `#[const_trait] trait Default` (`#![feature(const_default)]` + `#![feature(const_trait_impl)]`).
CC https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132162
