Update FreeBSD toolchain to 12.3
Update the FreeBSD toolchain to 12.3. FreeBSD 11 is EOL since September 30, 2021.
I've locally verified that the `dist-x86_64-freebsd` docker image builds successfully.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Fix weird js condition
While going around the code, I found this weird condition. Fixing also affects the generated results in some cases apparently (could only find this one).
Any idea maybe `@notriddle?`
r? `@notriddle`
Update cargo
4 commits in 4d92f07f34ba7fb7d7f207564942508f46c225d3..8d42b0e8794ce3787c9f7d6d88b02ae80ebe8d19
2022-06-10 01:11:04 +0000 to 2022-06-17 16:46:26 +0000
- Use specific terminology for sparse HTTP-based registry (rust-lang/cargo#10764)
- chore: Upgrade to clap 3.2 (rust-lang/cargo#10753)
- Improve testing framework for http registries (rust-lang/cargo#10738)
- doc: Improve example of using the links field (rust-lang/cargo#10728)
once cell renamings
This PR does the renamings proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74465#issuecomment-1153703128
- Move/rename `lazy::{OnceCell, Lazy}` to `cell::{OnceCell, LazyCell}`
- Move/rename `lazy::{SyncOnceCell, SyncLazy}` to `sync::{OnceLock, LazyLock}`
(I used `Lazy...` instead of `...Lazy` as it seems to be more consistent, easier to pronounce, etc)
```@rustbot``` label +T-libs-api -T-libs
Don't build the compiler before building rust-demangler
This saves a lot of time compiling, since rust-demangler doesn't actually use any unstable features.
This is not quite ideal because it uses ToolStd, not ToolBootstrap, so rust-demangler would be able to add unstable library features in the future. But it's a lot better than before, and `builder.cargo` doesn't currently know how to handle stages other than 0.
Pass all paths to `Step::run` at once when using `ShouldRun::krate`
Helps with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95503. The goal is to run `cargo test -p rustc_data_structures -p rustc_lint_defs` instead of `cargo test -p rustc_data_structures; cargo test -p rustc_lint_defs`, which should both recompile less and avoid replaying cached warnings.
This was surprisingly complicated. The main changes are:
1. Invert the order of iteration in `StepDescription::run`.
Previously, it did something like:
```python
for path in paths:
for (step, should_run) in should_runs:
if let Some(set) = should_run.pathset_for_path(path):
step.run(builder, set)
```
That worked ok for individual paths, but didn't allow passing more than one path at a time to `Step::run`
(since `pathset_for_paths` only had one path available to it).
Change it to instead look at the intersection of `paths` and `should_run.paths`:
```python
for (step, should_run) in should_runs:
if let Some(set) = should_run.pathset_for_paths(paths):
step.run(builder, set)
```
2. Change `pathset_for_path` to take multiple pathsets.
The goal is to avoid `x test library/alloc` testing *all* library crates, instead of just alloc.
The changes here are similarly subtle, to use the intersection between the paths rather than all
paths in `should_run.paths`. I added a test for the behavior to try and make it more clear.
Note that we use pathsets instead of just paths to allow for sets with multiple aliases (*cough* `all_krates` *cough*).
See the documentation added in the next commit for more detail.
3. Change `StepDescription::run` to explicitly handle 0 paths.
Before this was implicitly handled by the `for` loop, which just didn't excute when there were no paths.
Now it needs a check, to avoid trying to run all steps (this is a problem for steps that use `default_condition`).
4. Change `RunDescription` to have a list of pathsets, rather than a single path.
5. Remove paths as they're matched
This allows checking at the end that no invalid paths are left over.
Note that if two steps matched the same path, this will no longer run both;
but that's a bug anyway.
6. Handle suite paths separately from regular sets.
Running multiple suite paths at once instead of in separate `make_run` invocations is both tricky and not particularly useful.
The respective test Steps already handle this by introspecting the original paths.
Avoid having to deal with it by moving suite handling into a seperate loop than `PathSet::Set` checks.
`@rustbot` label +A-rustbuild
This was surprisingly complicated. The main changes are:
1. Invert the order of iteration in `StepDescription::run`.
Previously, it did something like:
```python
for path in paths:
for (step, should_run) in should_runs:
if let Some(set) = should_run.pathset_for_path(path):
step.run(builder, set)
```
That worked ok for individual paths, but didn't allow passing more than one path at a time to `Step::run`
(since `pathset_for_paths` only had one path available to it).
Change it to instead look at the intersection of `paths` and `should_run.paths`:
```python
for (step, should_run) in should_runs:
if let Some(set) = should_run.pathset_for_paths(paths):
step.run(builder, set)
```
2. Change `pathset_for_path` to take multiple pathsets.
The goal is to avoid `x test library/alloc` testing *all* library crates, instead of just alloc.
The changes here are similarly subtle, to use the intersection between the paths rather than all
paths in `should_run.paths`. I added a test for the behavior to try and make it more clear.
Note that we use pathsets instead of just paths to allow for sets with multiple aliases (*cough* `all_krates` *cough*).
See the documentation added in the next commit for more detail.
3. Change `StepDescription::run` to explicitly handle 0 paths.
Before this was implicitly handled by the `for` loop, which just didn't excute when there were no paths.
Now it needs a check, to avoid trying to run all steps (this is a problem for steps that use `default_condition`).
4. Change `RunDescription` to have a list of pathsets, rather than a single path.
5. Remove paths as they're matched
This allows checking at the end that no invalid paths are left over.
Note that if two steps matched the same path, this will no longer run both;
but that's a bug anyway.
6. Handle suite paths separately from regular sets.
Running multiple suite paths at once instead of in separate `make_run` invocations is both tricky and not particularly useful.
The respective test Steps already handle this by introspecting the original paths.
Avoid having to deal with it by moving suite handling into a seperate loop than `PathSet::Set` checks.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #97803 (Impl Termination for Infallible and then make the Result impls of Termination more generic)
- #97828 (Allow configuring where artifacts are downloaded from)
- #98150 (Emscripten target: replace -g4 with -g, and -g3 with --profiling-funcs)
- #98195 (Fix rustdoc json primitive handling)
- #98205 (Remove a possible unnecessary assignment)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Allow configuring where artifacts are downloaded from
Bootstrap has support for downloading prebuilt LLVM and rustc artifacts to speed up local builds, but that currently works only for users working on `rust-lang/rust`. Forks of the repository (for example Ferrocene) might have different URLs to download artifacts from, or might use a different email address on merge commits, breaking both LLVM and rustc artifact downloads.
This PR refactors bootstrap to load the download URLs and other constants from `src/stage0.json`, allowing downstream forks to tweak those values. It also future-proofs the download code to easily allow forks to add their own custom protocols (like `s3://`).
This PR is best reviewed commit-by-commit.
Impl Termination for Infallible and then make the Result impls of Termination more generic
This allows things like `Result<ExitCode, E>` to 'just work'
4 commits in 4d92f07f34ba7fb7d7f207564942508f46c225d3..8d42b0e8794ce3787c9f7d6d88b02ae80ebe8d19
2022-06-10 01:11:04 +0000 to 2022-06-17 16:46:26 +0000
- Use specific terminology for sparse HTTP-based registry (rust-lang/cargo#10764)
- chore: Upgrade to clap 3.2 (rust-lang/cargo#10753)
- Improve testing framework for http registries (rust-lang/cargo#10738)
- doc: Improve example of using the links field (rust-lang/cargo#10728)
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #95392 (std: Stabilize feature try_reserve_2 )
- #97798 (Hide irrelevant lines in suggestions to allow for suggestions that are far from each other to be shown)
- #97844 (Windows: No panic if function not (yet) available)
- #98013 (Subtype FRU fields first in `type_changing_struct_update`)
- #98191 (Remove the rest of unnecessary `to_string`)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Subtype FRU fields first in `type_changing_struct_update`
So this fixes a subtle bug that `type_changing_struct_update` introduced, where it'll no longer coerce the base expr correctly. I actually think this code is easier to understand now, too.
r? `@lcnr` since you reviewed the last one
Hide irrelevant lines in suggestions to allow for suggestions that are far from each other to be shown
This is an attempt to fix suggestions one part of which is 6 lines or more far from the first. I've noticed "the problem" (of not showing some parts of the suggestion) here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97759#discussion_r889689230.
I'm not sure about the implementation (this big closure is just bad and makes already complicated code even more so), but I want to at least discuss the result.
Here is an example of how this changes the output:
Before:
```text
help: consider enclosing expression in a block
|
3 ~ 'l: { match () { () => break 'l,
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
...
```
After:
```text
help: consider enclosing expression in a block
|
3 ~ 'l: { match () { () => break 'l,
4 |
...
31|
32~ } };
|
```
r? `@estebank`
`@rustbot` label +A-diagnostics +A-suggestion-diagnostics
Move `finish` out of the `Encoder` trait.
This simplifies things, but requires making `CacheEncoder` non-generic.
(This was previously merged as commit 4 in #94732 and then was reverted
in #97905 because it caused a perf regression.)
r? `@ghost`
Make #[cfg(bootstrap)] not error in proc macros on later stages
As was discovered in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93628#issuecomment-1154697627,
adding #[cfg(bootstrap)] to a rust-internal proc macro crate
would yield an unexpected cfg name error, at least on later
stages wher the bootstrap cfg arg wasn't set.
rustc already passes arguments to mark bootstrap as expected,
however the means of delivery through the RUSTFLAGS env var
is unable to reach proc macro crates, as described
in the issue linked in the code this commit touches.
This wouldn't be an issue for cfg args that get passed through
RUSTFLAGS, as they would never become *active* either, so
any usage of one of these flags in a proc macro's code would
legitimately yield a lint warning. But since dc30258,
rust takes extra measures to pass --cfg=bootstrap even in
proc macros, by passing it via the wrapper. Thus, we need
to send the flags to mark bootstrap as expected also from the
wrapper, so that #[cfg(bootstrap)] also works from proc macros.
I want to thank `Urgau` and `jplatte` for helping me find the cause of this. ❤️
debuginfo: Fix NatVis for Rc and Arc with unsized pointees.
Currently, the NatVis for `Rc<T>` and `Arc<T>` does not support unsized `T`. For both `Rc<T>` and `Rc<dyn SomeTrait>` the visualizers fail:
```txt
[Reference count] : -> must be used on pointers and . on structures
[Weak reference count] : -> must be used on pointers and . on structures
```
This PR fixes the visualizers. For slices we can even give show the elements, so one now gets something like:
```txt
slice_rc : { len=3 }
[Length] : 3
[Reference count] : 41
[Weak reference count] : 2
[0] : 1
[1] : 2
[2] : 3
```
r? `@wesleywiser`
Support lint expectations for `--force-warn` lints (RFC 2383)
Rustc has a `--force-warn` flag, which overrides lint level attributes and forces the diagnostics to always be warn. This means, that for lint expectations, the diagnostic can't be suppressed as usual. This also means that the expectation would not be fulfilled, even if a lint had been triggered in the expected scope.
This PR now also tracks the expectation ID in the `ForceWarn` level. I've also made some minor adjustments, to possibly catch more bugs and make the whole implementation more robust.
This will probably conflict with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97718. That PR should ideally be reviewed and merged first. The conflict itself will be trivial to fix.
---
r? `@wesleywiser`
cc: `@flip1995` since you've helped with the initial review and also discussed this topic with me. 🙃
Follow-up of: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87835
Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85549
Yeah, and that's it.
