Add tests for `-Zunpretty=expanded` ported from stringify's tests
This PR adds a new set of tests for the AST pretty-printer.
Previously, pretty-printer edge cases were tested by way of `stringify!` in [tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.78.0/tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs), such as the tests added by 419b26931b and 527e2eac17.
Those tests will no longer provide effective coverage of the AST pretty-printer after #124141. `Nonterminal` and `TokenKind::Interpolated` are being removed, and a consequence is that `stringify!` will perform token stream pretty printing, instead of AST pretty printing, in all of the `stringify!` cases including $:expr and all other interpolations.
This PR adds 2 new ui tests with `compile-flags: -Zunpretty=expanded`:
- **tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-exhaustive.rs** — this test aims for exhaustive coverage of all the variants of `ExprKind`, `ItemKind`, `PatKind`, `StmtKind`, `TyKind`, and `VisibilityKind`. Some parts could use being fleshed out further, but the current state is roughly on par with what exists in the old stringify-based tests.
- **tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-interpolation.rs** — this test covers tricky macro metavariable edge cases that require the AST pretty printer to synthesize parentheses in order for the printed code to be valid Rust syntax.
r? `@nnethercote`
Only make GAT ambiguous in `match_projection_projections` considering shallow resolvability
In #123537, I tweaked the hack from #93892 to use `resolve_vars_if_possible` instead of `shallow_resolve`. This considers more inference guidance ambiguous. This resulted in crater regressions in #125196.
I've effectively reverted the change to the old behavior. That being said, I don't *like* this behavior, but I'd rather keep it for now since #123537 was not meant to make any behavioral changes. See the attached example.
This also affects the new solver, for the record, which doesn't have any rules about not guiding inference from param-env candidates which may constrain GAT args as a side-effect.
r? `@lcnr` or `@jackh726`
Rename Unsafe to Safety
Alternative to #124455, which is to just have one Safety enum to use everywhere, this opens the posibility of adding `ast::Safety::Safe` that's useful for unsafe extern blocks.
This leaves us today with:
```rust
enum ast::Safety {
Unsafe(Span),
Default,
// Safe (going to be added for unsafe extern blocks)
}
enum hir::Safety {
Unsafe,
Safe,
}
```
We would convert from `ast::Safety::Default` into the right Safety level according the context.
Improve parser
Fixes#124935.
- Add a few more help diagnostics to incorrect semicolons
- Overall improved that function
- Addded a few comments
- Renamed diff_marker fns to git_diff_marker
Fix println! ICE when parsing percent prefix number
This PR fixes#125002 ICE occurring, for example, with `println!("%100000", 1)` or `println!("% 100000", 1)`.
## Test Case/Change Explanation
The return type of `Num::from_str` has been changed to `Option<Self>` to handle errors when parsing large integers fails.
1. The first `println!` in the test case covers the change of the first `Num::from_str` usage in `format_foreign.rs:426`.
2. The second `println!` in the test case covers the change of the second `Num::from_str` usage in line 460.
3. The 3rd to 5th `Num::from_str` usages behave the same as before.
The 3rd usage would cause an ICE when `num > u16::MAX` in the previous version, but this commit does not include a fix for the ICE in `println!("{:100000$}")`. I think we need to emit an error in the compiler and have more discussion in another issue/PR.
Migrate `run-make/issue64319` to `rmake` and rename
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
~~I noticed that the Makefile was not listed in `allowed-run-makefiles` in Tidy. Does this mean the test was being ignored?~~ EDIT: No, it was there, just not in its expected alphabetical order.
EDIT2: Perhaps it could be interesting to clean this test visually by looping over the `rustc` calls, like in #125227.
Update `expr` matcher for Edition 2024 and add `expr_2021` nonterminal
This commit adds a new nonterminal `expr_2021` in macro patterns, and `expr_fragment_specifier_2024` feature flag.
This change also updates `expr` so that on Edition 2024 it will also match `const { ... }` blocks, while `expr_2021` preserves the current behavior of `expr`, matching expressions without `const` blocks.
Joint work with `@vincenzopalazzo.`
Issue #123742
expand: fix minor diagnostics bug
The error mentions `///`, when it's actually `//!`:
```
error[E0658]: attributes on expressions are experimental
--> test.rs:4:9
|
4 | //! wah
| ^^^^^^^
|
= note: see issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701> for more information
= help: add `#![feature(stmt_expr_attributes)]` to the crate attributes to enable
= help: `///` is for documentation comments. For a plain comment, use `//`.
```
Enable `rust-lld` on nightly `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu`
We believe we have done virtually all the internal work and tests we could to prepare for using `lld` as the default linker (at least on Linux). We're IMHO at a point where we'd need to expand testing and coverage in order to make progress on this effort.
Therefore, for further testing and gathering real-world feedback, unexpected issues and use-cases, this PR enables `rust-lld` as the default linker:
- on nightly only (and dev channel)
- on `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu` only
- when not using an external LLVM (except `download-ci-llvm`), so that distros are not impacted
as described in more detail in this [zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Enabling.20.60rust-lld.60.20on.20nightly.20.60x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.60/near/433709343).
In case any issues happen to users, as e.g. lld is not bug-for-bug compatible with GNU ld, it's easy to disable with `-Zlinker-features=-lld` to revert to using the system's default linker.
---
I don't know who should review this kind of things, as it's somewhat of a crosscutting effort. Compiler contributor, compiler performance WG and infra member sounds perfect, so r? `@Mark-Simulacrum.`
The last crater run encountered a low number (44) of mainly avoidable issues, like small incompatibilities, user errors, and a difference between the two linkers about which default to use with `--gc-sections`. [Here's the triage report](https://hackmd.io/OAJxlxc6Te6YUot9ftYSKQ?view), categorizing the issues, with some analyses and workarounds. I'd appreciate another set of eyes looking at these results.
The changes in this PR have been test-driven for CI changes, try builds with tests enabled, rustc-perf with bootstrapping, in PR #113382.
For infra, about the CI change: this PR forces `rust.lld` to false on vanilla LLVM builders, just to make sure we have coverage without `rust-lld`. Though to be clear, just using an external LLVM is already enough to keep `rust.lld` to false, in turn reverting everything to using the system's default linker.
cc `@rust-lang/bootstrap` for the bootstrap and config change
cc `@petrochenkov` for the small compiler change
cc `@rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance`
The blog post announcing the change, that we expect to merge around the same time as we merge this PR, is open [on the blog repo](https://github.com/rust-lang/blog.rust-lang.org/pull/1319).
Bootstrap change history: this PR changes the default of a config option on `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu`. It's, however, not expected to cause issues, or require any changes to existing configurations. It's a big enough change that people should at least know about it, in case it causes unexpected problems. If that happens, set `rust.lld = false` in your `config.toml` (and open an issue).
Fix assertion when attempting to convert `f16` and `f128` with `as`
These types are currently rejected for `as` casts by the compiler. Remove this incorrect check and add codegen tests for all conversions involving these types.
These types are currently rejected for `as` casts by the compiler.
Remove this incorrect check and add codegen tests for all conversions
involving these types.
Rename `${length()}` to `${len()}`
Implements the rename suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122808#issuecomment-2047722187
> I brought this up in the doc PR but it belongs here – `length` should probably be renamed `len` before stabilization. The latter is de facto standard in the standard library, whereas the former is only used in a single unstable API. These metafunctions aren’t library items of course, but should presumably still be consistent with established names.
r? `@c410-f3r`
rustdoc: Negative impls are not notable
In #124097, we add `impl !Iterator for [T]` for coherence reasons, and since `Iterator` is a [notable trait](8387315ab3/library/core/src/iter/traits/iterator.rs (L40)), this means that all `-> &[_]` now are tagged with a `!Iterator` impl as a notable trait.
I "fixed" the failing tests in that PR with 6cbbb8b709a43482847243484ed67131e372ba71, where I just blessed the tests, since I didn't want to mix these changes with that PR; however, don't believe negative impls are notable, and this PR aims to prevent these impls from being mentioned.
In the standard library, we use negative impls purely to guide coherence. They're not really a signal of anything useful to the end-user. If there ever is a case that we want negative impls to be mentioned as notable, this really should be an opt-in feature.
Migrate `run-make/no-cdylib-as-rdylib` to `rmake`
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
> "the test will fail if the cdylib is picked, because it doesn't export any rust symbols"
Is that true? Is there a way to verify?
I suggest maybe extending the test with: (after cleaning the directory)
```rust
rustc()
.input("bar.rs")
.crate_type("cdylib")
.run();
rustc()
.input("foo.rs")
.prefer_dynamic()
.run();
fail();
```
to make sure we're actually testing something here.
