terminology: #[feature] *enables* a feature (instead of "declaring" or "activating" it)
Mostly, we currently call a feature that has a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` attribute in the current crate a "declared" feature. I think that is confusing as it does not align with what "declaring" usually means. Furthermore, we *also* refer to `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]` as *declaring* a feature (e.g. in [these diagnostics](f25e5abea2/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl (L297-L301))), which aligns better with what "declaring" usually means. To make things worse, the functions `tcx.features().active(...)` and `tcx.features().declared(...)` both exist and they are doing almost the same thing (testing whether a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` exists) except that `active` would ICE if the feature is not an unstable lang feature. On top of this, the callback when a feature is activated/declared is called `set_enabled`, and many comments also talk about "enabling" a feature.
So really, our terminology is just a mess.
I would suggest we use "declaring a feature" for saying that something is/was guarded by a feature (e.g. `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]`), and "enabling a feature" for `#[feature(name)]`. This PR implements that.
epoll_ctl: throw unsupported error on unsupported opcode
`@tiif` this is a somewhat suspicious "return -1" without setting the `errno` -- what is the reasoning behind that?
Throwing a clear error seems better to me.
Move const trait tests from `ui/rfcs/rfc-2632-const-trait-impl` to `ui/traits/const-traits`
I found the old test directory to be somewhat long to name, and I don't think it's necessary to put an experimental implementation's tests under an rfc which is closed.
r? fee1-dead
Breaking this out of #131985 so that PR doesn't touch 300 files.
make unsupported_calling_conventions a hard error
This has been a future-compat lint (not shown in dependencies) since Rust 1.55, released 3 years ago. Hopefully that was enough time so this can be made a hard error now. Given that long timeframe, I think it's justified to skip the "show in dependencies" stage. There were [not many crates hitting this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86231#issuecomment-866300943) even when the lint was originally added.
This should get cratered, and I assume then it needs a t-compiler FCP. (t-compiler because this looks entirely like an implementation oversight -- for the vast majority of ABIs, we already have a hard error, but some were initially missed, and we are finally fixing that.)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87678
feat: better completions for extern blcoks
This PR refactors `add_keywords` (making it much clearer!) and enhances completion for `extern` blocks.
It is recommended to reviewing the changes in order of the commits:
- The first commit (f3c4dde0a4917a2bac98605cc045eecfb4d69872) doesn’t change any logic but refactors parts of the `add_keywords` function and adds detailed comments.
- The second commit (5dcc1ab649bf8a49cadf006d620871b12f093a2f) improves completion for `extern` kw and extern blocks.
linkchecker: add a reminder on broken links to add new/renamed pages to `SUMMARY.md` for mdBooks
I spent an embarrassingly long amount of time trying to figure out why CI was failing for a PR adding new platform support docs. In turns out it's because the PR author didn't register the new page in `SUMMARY.md`. I completely forgot about it too, and was reading linkchecker source because I thought it was a bug in linkchecker.
So this PR adds a note to modify `SUMMARY.md` when adding new pages in a mdBook.
E.g.
```
# Adding a new `meow` target but forgor to register the page in `SUMMARY.md`
rustc\platform-support.html:183: broken link - `rustc\platform-support\meow.html`
rustc\print.html:9730: broken link - `rustc\platform-support\meow.html`
checked links in: 19.1s
number of HTML files scanned: 43588
number of HTML redirects found: 13735
number of links checked: 3145951
number of links ignored due to external: 156244
number of links ignored due to exceptions: 9
number of intra doc links ignored: 8
errors found: 2
NOTE: if you are adding or renaming a markdown file in a mdBook, don't forget to register the page in SUMMARY.md
found some broken links
```
stabilize Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance APIs
Given that [RFC 3559](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3559-rust-has-provenance.html) has been accepted, t-lang has approved the concept of provenance to exist in the language. So I think it's time that we stabilize the strict provenance and exposed provenance APIs, and discuss provenance explicitly in the docs:
```rust
// core::ptr
pub const fn without_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub const fn dangling<T>() -> *const T;
pub const fn without_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
pub const fn dangling_mut<T>() -> *mut T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
impl<T: ?Sized> *const T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> *mut T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> NonNull<T> {
pub fn addr(self) -> NonZero<usize>;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(NonZero<usize>) -> NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
}
```
I also did a pass over the docs to adjust them, because this is no longer an "experiment". The `ptr` docs now discuss the concept of provenance in general, and then they go into the two families of APIs for dealing with provenance: Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance. I removed the discussion of how pointers also have an associated "address space" -- that is not actually tracked in the pointer value, it is tracked in the type, so IMO it just distracts from the core point of provenance. I also adjusted the docs for `with_exposed_provenance` to make it clear that we cannot guarantee much about this function, it's all best-effort.
There are two unstable lints associated with the strict_provenance feature gate; I moved them to a new [strict_provenance_lints](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130351) feature since I didn't want this PR to have an even bigger FCP. ;)
`@rust-lang/opsem` Would be great to get some feedback on the docs here. :)
Nominating for `@rust-lang/libs-api.`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95228.
[FCP comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130350#issuecomment-2395114536)
Replace set_last_error with set_last_error_and_return
Took care of the simple patterns. Other patterns involved setting an error and then using `write_int` or setting metadata and returning -1. Unsure if those are in the scope of this change
Looks like this has conflicts with #3779, so I can update when how to handle that is decided.
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/3930.
