Allow custom default address spaces and parse `p-` specifications in the datalayout string
Some targets, such as CHERI, use as default an address space different from the "normal" default address space `0` (in the case of CHERI, [200 is used](https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-877.pdf)). Currently, `rustc` does not allow to specify custom address spaces and does not take into consideration [`p-` specifications in the datalayout string](https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#langref-datalayout).
This patch tries to mitigate these problems by allowing targets to define a custom default address space (while keeping the default value to address space `0`) and adding the code to parse the `p-` specifications in `rustc_abi`. The main changes are that `TargetDataLayout` now uses functions to refer to pointer-related informations, instead of having specific fields for the size and alignment of pointers in the default address space; furthermore, the two `pointer_size` and `pointer_align` fields in `TargetDataLayout` are replaced with an `FxHashMap` that holds info for all the possible address spaces, as parsed by the `p-` specifications.
The potential performance drawbacks of not having ad-hoc fields for the default address space will be tested in this PR's CI run.
r? workingjubilee
interpret: rename StackPopCleanup
The name `StackPopCleanup` stopped making sense a long time ago IMO -- in the common case, it has nothing to do with "cleanup", and everything with where the program should jump next. If we didn't have unwinding this would be just the return block, but given that we do have unwinding I figured maybe "continuation" would be a good name. This comes up in [continuation-passing style](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation-passing_style) and refers to where the program will *continue* when a function is done. So from a PL perspective it is the most fitting term I think -- but it may be too jargony.
r? `@oli-obk` what do you think?
compiler: rename BareFn to FnPtr
At some point "BareFn" was the chosen name for a "bare" function, without the niceties of `~fn`, `&fn`, or a few other ways of writing a function type. However, at some point the syntax for a "bare function" and any other function diverged even more. We started calling them what they are: function pointers, denoted by their own syntax.
However, we never changed the *internal* name for these, as this divergence was very gradual. Personally, I have repeatedly searched for "FnPtr" and gotten confused until I find the name is BareFn, only to forget this until the next time, since I don't routinely interact with the higher-level AST and HIR. But even tools that interact with these internal types only touch on them in a few places, making a migration easy enough. Let's use a more intuitive and obvious name, as this 12+ year old name has little to do with current Rust.
The clock_nanosleep support is there to allow code using `sleep_until`
to run under Miri. Therefore the implementation is minimal.
- Only the clocks REALTIME and MONOTONIC are supported. The first is supported simply
because it was trivial to add not because it was needed for sleep_until.
- The only supported flag combinations are no flags or TIMER_ABSTIME only.
If an unsupported flag combination or clock is passed in this throws
unsupported.
tidy: use --bless for tidy spellcheck instead of spellcheck:fix
previous behavior was inconsistent with existing extra checks.
unsure if this needs a change tracker entry or a warning for people who try to use the old behavior.
unsure if we should call this `spellcheck:lint` for consistency.
making this consistent is a prerequisite for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143398
cc `@nnethercote`
r? `@Kobzol`
[COMPILETEST-UNTANGLE 4/N] Improve compiletest config documentation
This is part of a patch series to untangle `compiletest` to hopefully nudge it towards being more maintainable.
This PR should contain **no functional changes**.
This is pulled out to its own PR to make follow-up changes easier to review.
There are *intentionally* a *lot* of FIXME comments, intended to be gradually addressed in follow-ups.
r? `@Kobzol`
`tests/ui`: A New Order [14/N]
> [!NOTE]
>
> Intermediate commits are intended to help review, but will be squashed prior to merge.
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? `@jieyouxu`
Previously, the following configuration in settings.json:
"rust-analyzer.workspace.discoverConfig": {
"command": [
"oops",
"develop-json",
"{arg}"
],
"progressLabel": "rust-analyzer",
"filesToWatch": [
"BUCK",
"TARGETS"
]
},
Would previously cause a crash in rust-analyzer:
thread 'LspServer' panicked at crates/rust-analyzer/src/main_loop.rs:776:84:
called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: Os { code: 2, kind: NotFound, message: "No such file or directory" }
Instead, use more specific panic messages.
Make __rust_alloc_error_handler_should_panic a function
Fixesrust-lang/rust#143253
`__rust_alloc_error_handler_should_panic` is a static but was being exported as a function.
For most targets this doesn't matter, but Arm64EC Windows uses different decorations for exported variables vs functions, hence it fails to link when `-Z oom=abort` is enabled.
We've had issues in the past with statics like this (see rust-lang/rust#141061) but the tldr; is that Arm64EC needs symbols correctly exported as either a function or data, and data MUST and MUST ONLY be marked `dllimport` when the symbol is being imported from another binary, which is non-trivial to calculate for these compiler-generated statics.
So, instead, the easiest thing to do is to make `__rust_alloc_error_handler_should_panic` a function instead.
Since `__rust_alloc_error_handler_should_panic` isn't involved in any linking shenanigans, I've marked it as `AlwaysInline` with the hopes that the various backends will see that it is just returning a constant and perform the same optimizations as the previous implementation.
r? `@bjorn3`
Make -Ztrack-diagnostics emit like a note
[#t-compiler/diagnostics > Rendering -Ztrack-diagnostics like a note](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/147480-t-compiler.2Fdiagnostics/topic/Rendering.20-Ztrack-diagnostics.20like.20a.20note/with/526608647)
As discussed on the Zulip thread above, I want to make `-Ztrack-diagnostics` emit like a `note`. This is because I find its current output jarring, and the fact that it gets rendered completely left-aligned, [even in the middle of a snippet](86e05cd300/tests/ui/track-diagnostics/track6.stderr), seems like something that should be changed. Turning it into a `note` seems like the best choice, as it would align it with the rest of the output, and `note` is already used for somewhat similar things, like seeing why a lint was fired.
---
Note: turning `-Ztrack-diagnostics` into a `note` will also make `annotate-snippets` API a bit cleaner
