Tidy Python improvements
Fixes display of Python formatting diffs in tidy, and refactors the code to make it simpler and more robust. Also documents Python formatting and linting in the Rustc dev guide.
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/135942
r? `@onur-ozkan`
Implement `needs-subprocess` directive, and cleanup a bunch of tests to use `needs-{subprocess,threads}`
### Summary
Closes#128295.
- Implements `//@ needs-subprocess` directive in compiletest as requested in #128295. However, compiletest is a host tool, so we can't just try to spawn process because that spawns the process on *host*, not the *target*, under cross-compilation scenarios.
- The short-term solution is to add *Yet Another* list of allow-list targets.
- The long-term solution is to first check if a `$target` supports std, then try to run a binary to do run-time capability detection *on the target*. But that is tricky because you have to build-and-run a binary *for the target*.
- This PR picks the short-term solution, because the long-term solution is highly non-trivial, and it's already an improvement over individual `ignore-*`s all over the place.
- Opened an issue about the long-term solution in #135928.
- Documents `//@ needs-subprocess` in rustc-dev-guide.
- Replace `ignore-{wasm,wasm32,emscripten,sgx}` with `needs-{subprocess,threads}` where suitable in tests.
- Some drive-by test changes as I was trying to figure out if I could use `needs-{subprocess,threads}` and found some bits needlessly distracting.
Count of tests that use `ignore-{wasm,wasm32,emscripten,sgx}` before and after this PR:
| State | `ignore-sgx` | `ignore-wasm` | `ignore-emscripten` |
| - | - | - | - |
| Before this PR | 96 | 88 | 207 |
| After this PR | 36 | 38 | 61 |
<details>
<summary>Commands used to find out locally</summary>
```
--- before
[17:40] Joe:rust (fresh) | rg --no-ignore -l "ignore-sgx" tests | wc -l
96
[17:40] Joe:rust (fresh) | rg --no-ignore -l "ignore-wasm" tests | wc -l
88
[17:40] Joe:rust (fresh) | rg --no-ignore -l "ignore-emscripten" tests | wc -l
207
--- after
[17:39] Joe:rust (needs-subprocess-thread) | rg --no-ignore -l "ignore-sgx" tests | wc -l
36
[17:39] Joe:rust (needs-subprocess-thread) | rg --no-ignore -l "ignore-wasm" tests | wc -l
38
[17:39] Joe:rust (needs-subprocess-thread) | rg --no-ignore -l "ignore-emscripten" tests | wc -l
61
```
</details>
### Review advice
- Best reviewed commit-by-commit.
- Non-trivial test changes (not mechanically simple replacements) are split into individual commits to help with review. Their individual commit messages give some basic description of the changes.
- I *could* split some test changes out into another PR, but I found that I needed to change some tests to `needs-threads`, some to `needs-subprocess`, and some needed to use *both*, so they might conflict and become very annoying.
---
r? ``@ghost`` (need to run try jobs)
try-job: x86_64-msvc-1
try-job: i686-msvc-1
try-job: i686-mingw
try-job: x86_64-mingw-1
try-job: x86_64-apple-1
try-job: aarch64-apple
try-job: aarch64-gnu
try-job: test-various
try-job: armhf-gnu
Add NuttX support for AArch64 and ARMv7-A targets
This patch adds tier 3 support for AArch64 and ARMv7-A targets in NuttX, including:
- AArch64 target: aarch64-unknown-nuttx
- ARMv7-A target: armv7a-nuttx-eabi, armv7a-nuttx-eabihf
- Thumbv7-A target: thumbv7a-nuttx-eabi, thumbv7a-nuttx-eabihf
remove pointless allowed_through_unstable_modules on TryFromSliceError
This got added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132482 but the PR does not explain why. `@lukas-code` do you still remember? Also Cc `@Noratrieb` as reviewer of that PR.
If I understand the issue description correctly, all paths under which this type is exported are stable now: `core::array::TryFromSliceError` and `std::array::TryFromSliceError`. If that is the case, we shouldn't have the attribute; it's a terrible hack that should only be used when needed to maintain backward compatibility. Getting some historic information right is IMO *not* sufficient justification to risk accidentally exposing this type via more unstable paths today or in the future.
Get rid of RunCompiler
The various `set_*` methods that have been removed can be replaced by setting the respective fields in the `Callbacks::config` implementation. `set_using_internal_features` was often forgotten and it's equivalent is now done automatically.
Add test for checking used glibc symbols
This test checks that we do not use too new glibc symbols in the compiler on x64 GNU Linux, in order not to break our [glibc promises](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2022/08/01/Increasing-glibc-kernel-requirements.html).
One thing that isn't solved in the PR yet is to make sure that this test will only run on `dist` CI, more specifically on the `dist-x86_64-linux` runner, in the opt-dist post-optimization tests (it can fail elsewhere, that doesn't matter). Any suggestions on how to do that are welcome.
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134037
r? `@jieyouxu`
remove support for the (unstable) #[start] attribute
As explained by `@Noratrieb:`
`#[start]` should be deleted. It's nothing but an accidentally leaked implementation detail that's a not very useful mix between "portable" entrypoint logic and bad abstraction.
I think the way the stable user-facing entrypoint should work (and works today on stable) is pretty simple:
- `std`-using cross-platform programs should use `fn main()`. the compiler, together with `std`, will then ensure that code ends up at `main` (by having a platform-specific entrypoint that gets directed through `lang_start` in `std` to `main` - but that's just an implementation detail)
- `no_std` platform-specific programs should use `#![no_main]` and define their own platform-specific entrypoint symbol with `#[no_mangle]`, like `main`, `_start`, `WinMain` or `my_embedded_platform_wants_to_start_here`. most of them only support a single platform anyways, and need cfg for the different platform's ways of passing arguments or other things *anyways*
`#[start]` is in a super weird position of being neither of those two. It tries to pretend that it's cross-platform, but its signature is a total lie. Those arguments are just stubbed out to zero on ~~Windows~~ wasm, for example. It also only handles the platform-specific entrypoints for a few platforms that are supported by `std`, like Windows or Unix-likes. `my_embedded_platform_wants_to_start_here` can't use it, and neither could a libc-less Linux program.
So we have an attribute that only works in some cases anyways, that has a signature that's a total lie (and a signature that, as I might want to add, has changed recently, and that I definitely would not be comfortable giving *any* stability guarantees on), and where there's a pretty easy way to get things working without it in the first place.
Note that this feature has **not** been RFCed in the first place.
*This comment was posted [in May](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/29633#issuecomment-2088596042) and so far nobody spoke up in that issue with a usecase that would require keeping the attribute.*
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/29633
try-job: x86_64-gnu-nopt
try-job: x86_64-msvc-1
try-job: x86_64-msvc-2
try-job: test-various
Treat other items as functions for the purpose of type-based search
specifically, constants and statics are nullary functions, and struct fields are unary functions.
fixes#130204
r? ``@notriddle``
constants and statics are nullary functions, and struct fields are unary functions.
functions (along with methods and trait methods) are prioritized over other
items, like fields and constants.
This incorporates all the backwards-compatible changes for the 2024
Edition. There will also be a follow-on PR to land revisions to the new
chapter on async so it can be as ready as possible when officially
released with 1.85 and the 2024 Edition.
Additionally, there are a few other, non-backward-compatible, changes
(largely around `use<..>`) we can only land using the stable edition,
which we may or may not be able to land in 1.85 by using the beta
toolchain in the example code. Those may or may not be ported over,
depending on how that does or does not play with the infrastructure.
add `-Zmin-function-alignment`
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82232
This PR adds the `-Zmin-function-alignment=<align>` flag, that specifies a minimum alignment for all* functions.
### Motivation
This feature is requested by RfL [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128830):
> i.e. the equivalents of `-fmin-function-alignment` ([GCC](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-fmin-function-alignment_003dn), Clang does not support it) / `-falign-functions` ([GCC](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-falign-functions), [Clang](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangCommandLineReference.html#cmdoption-clang1-falign-functions)).
>
> For the Linux kernel, the behavior wanted is that of GCC's `-fmin-function-alignment` and Clang's `-falign-functions`, i.e. align all functions, including cold functions.
>
> There is [`feature(fn_align)`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82232), but we need to do it globally.
### Behavior
The `fn_align` feature does not have an RFC. It was decided at the time that it would not be necessary, but maybe we feel differently about that now? In any case, here are the semantics of this flag:
- `-Zmin-function-alignment=<align>` specifies the minimum alignment of all* functions
- the `#[repr(align(<align>))]` attribute can be used to override the function alignment on a per-function basis: when `-Zmin-function-alignment` is specified, the attribute's value is only used when it is higher than the value passed to `-Zmin-function-alignment`.
- the target may decide to use a higher value (e.g. on x86_64 the minimum that LLVM generates is 16)
- The highest supported alignment in rust is `2^29`: I checked a bunch of targets, and they all emit the `.p2align 29` directive for targets that align functions at all (some GPU stuff does not have function alignment).
*: Only with `build-std` would the minimum alignment also be applied to `std` functions.
---
cc `@ojeda`
r? `@workingjubilee` you were active on the tracking issue
This documents how to determine which settings are used in CI, since I
see this question come up regularly. We currently don't have a great way
to answer the question, but at least there is something.
This will cause the CI build to be marked successful even if the build
failed. Instead, use `if: '!cancelled()'` to always save the cache
(except when the job is cancelled), even if the linkcheck failed.
See https://stackoverflow.com/a/58859404 for more.
Rollup of 3 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #134898 (Make it easier to run CI jobs locally)
- #135195 (Make `lit_to_mir_constant` and `lit_to_const` infallible)
- #135261 (Account for identity substituted items in symbol mangling)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Make it easier to run CI jobs locally
This PR extends the Python CI script to perform a poor man's CI-like execution of a given CI job locally. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.
r? `@jieyouxu`
Add new `{x86_64,i686}-win7-windows-gnu` targets
These are in symmetry with `{x86_64,i686}-win7-windows-msvc`.
> ## Tier 3 target policy
>
> At this tier, the Rust project provides no official support for a target, so we
> place minimal requirements on the introduction of targets.
>
> A proposed new tier 3 target must be reviewed and approved by a member of the
> compiler team based on these requirements. The reviewer may choose to gauge
> broader compiler team consensus via a [Major Change Proposal (MCP)][https://forge.rust-lang.org/compiler/mcp.html].
>
> A proposed target or target-specific patch that substantially changes code
> shared with other targets (not just target-specific code) must be reviewed and
> approved by the appropriate team for that shared code before acceptance.
>
> - A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target
> maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target.
> (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
This is me, `@tbu-` on github.
> - Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a
> target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same
> name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and
> naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust
> (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to
> diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially
> once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important
> even for a tier 3 target.
> - Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless
> absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if
> the name of the target makes people extremely likely to form incorrect
> beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to
> disambiguate it.
> - If possible, use only letters, numbers, dashes and underscores for the name.
> Periods (`.`) are known to cause issues in Cargo.
Consistent with `{x86_64,i686}-win7-windows-msvc`, see also #118150.
> - Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not
> create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for
> Rust developers or users.
> - The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
> - Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust
> license (`MIT OR Apache-2.0`).
> - The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other
> host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend
> on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This
> applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding
> new license exceptions (as specified by the `tidy` tool in the
> rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library
> or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a
> user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be
> subject to any new license requirements.
> - Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other
> code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling
> from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries.
> Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary runtime
> libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications
> built for the target, but those libraries must not be required for code
> generation for the target; cross-compilation to the target must not require
> such libraries at all. For instance, `rustc` built for the target may
> depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library,
> but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code
> optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the
> Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the
> scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
> - "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous"
> legal/licensing terms include but are *not* limited to: non-disclosure
> requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements
> (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms,
> requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular
> Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability
> for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that
> adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its
> developers or users.
AFAICT, it's the same legal situation as the tier 1 `{x86_64,i686}-pc-windows-gnu`.
> - Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any
> binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving
> Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or
> employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their
> decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval
> decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise
> participate in discussions.
> - This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being
> cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or
> maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a
> developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not
> face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely
> exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves
> subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
Understood.
> - Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries
> as possible and appropriate (`core` for most targets, `alloc` for targets
> that can support dynamic memory allocation, `std` for targets with an
> operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but
> may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as
> appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or
> challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to
> avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3
> target not implementing those portions.
This target supports the whole libstd surface, since it's essentially reusing all of the x86_64-pc-windows-gnu target. Understood.
> - The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how
> to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target
> supports running binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the
> documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target,
> using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
I tried to write some documentation on that.
> - Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or
> other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular,
> do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a
> block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or
> notifications (via any medium, including via ``@`)` to a PR author or others
> involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into
> such messages.
> - Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to
> an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within
> reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not
> generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested
> such notifications.
Understood.
> - Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2
> or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without
> approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3
> target.
> - In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets,
> such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid
> introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the
> target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as
> appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
> - Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of
> rustc's supported backends from any host target. (Having support in a fork
> of the backend is not sufficient, it must be upstream.)
Understood.
> If a tier 3 target stops meeting these requirements, or the target maintainers
> no longer have interest or time, or the target shows no signs of activity and
> has not built for some time, or removing the target would improve the quality
> of the Rust codebase, we may post a PR to remove it; any such PR will be CCed
> to the target maintainers (and potentially other people who have previously
> worked on the target), to check potential interest in improving the situation.
>
Understood.
r? compiler-team
