This allows these test modules to pass on builds/targets without
unwinding support, where `panic = "abort"` - the ignored tests are for
functionality that's not supported on those targets.
Use `std::mem::{size_of, size_of_val, align_of, align_of_val}` from the
prelude instead of importing or qualifying them.
These functions were added to all preludes in Rust 1.80.
Return unexpected termination error instead of panicing in `Thread::join`
There is a time window during which the OS can terminate a thread before stdlib can retreive its `Packet`. Currently the `Thread::join` panics with no message in such an event, which makes debugging difficult; fixes#124466.
There is a time window during which the OS can terminate a thread before stdlib
can retreive its `Packet`. Currently the `Thread::join` panics with no message
in such an event, which makes debugging difficult; fixes#124466.
Thereby, we also allow accessing thread::current before main: as the runtime no longer tries to install its own handle, this will no longer trigger an abort. Rather, the name returned from name will only be "main" after the runtime initialization code has run, but I think that is acceptable.
This new approach also requires some changes to the signal handling code, as calling `thread::current` would now allocate when called on the main thread, which is not acceptable. I fixed this by adding a new function (`with_current_name`) that performs all the naming logic without allocation or without initializing the thread ID (which could allocate on some platforms).
There are multiple references in this module's documentation to the acronym "TLS", without defining it. This is confusing for the reader.
I propose that this acronym be defined during the first use of the term.
a release operation synchronizes with an acquire operation
Change:
1. `Calls to park _synchronize-with_ calls to unpark` to `Calls to unpark _synchronize-with_ calls to park`
2. `park synchronizes-with _all_ prior unpark operations` to `_all_ prior unpark operations synchronize-with park`
Bump boostrap compiler to new beta
Currently failing due to something about the const stability checks and `panic!`. I'm not sure why though since I wasn't able to see any PRs merged in the past few days that would result in a `cfg(bootstrap)` that shouldn't be removed. cc `@RalfJung` #131349
std: allow after-main use of synchronization primitives
By creating an unnamed thread handle when the actual one has already been destroyed, synchronization primitives using thread parking can be used even outside the Rust runtime.
This also fixes an inefficiency in the queue-based `RwLock`: if `thread::current` was not initialized yet, it will create a new handle on every parking attempt without initializing `thread::current`. The private `current_or_unnamed` function introduced here fixes this.
By creating an unnamed thread handle when the actual one has already been destroyed, synchronization primitives using thread parking can be used even outside the Rust runtime.
This also fixes an inefficiency in the queue-based `RwLock`: if `thread::current` was not initialized yet, it will create a new handle on every parking attempt without initializing `thread::current`. The private `current_or_unnamed` function introduced here fixes this.
Const stability checks v2
The const stability system has served us well ever since `const fn` were first stabilized. It's main feature is that it enforces *recursive* validity -- a stable const fn cannot internally make use of unstable const features without an explicit marker in the form of `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable]`. This is done to make sure that we don't accidentally expose unstable const features on stable in a way that would be hard to take back. As part of this, it is enforced that a `#[rustc_const_stable]` can only call `#[rustc_const_stable]` functions. However, some problems have been coming up with increased usage:
- It is baffling that we have to mark private or even unstable functions as `#[rustc_const_stable]` when they are used as helpers in regular stable `const fn`, and often people will rather add `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable]` instead which was not our intention.
- The system has several gaping holes: a private `const fn` without stability attributes whose inherited stability (walking up parent modules) is `#[stable]` is allowed to call *arbitrary* unstable const operations, but can itself be called from stable `const fn`. Similarly, `#[allow_internal_unstable]` on a macro completely bypasses the recursive nature of the check.
Fundamentally, the problem is that we have *three* disjoint categories of functions, and not enough attributes to distinguish them:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
Functions in the first two categories cannot use unstable const features and they can only call functions from the first two categories.
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, all the holes mentioned above have been closed. There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to be manually marked `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` to be sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked), it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or `#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]` functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding `#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]` functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No other attributes are required.
Also see the updated dev-guide at https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/2098.
I think in the future we may want to tweak this further, so that in the hopefully common case where a public function's const-stability just exactly mirrors its regular stability, we never have to add any attribute. But right now, once the function is stable this requires `#[rustc_const_stable]`.
### Open question
There is one point I could see we might want to do differently, and that is putting `#[rustc_const_unstable]` functions (but not intrinsics) in category 2 by default, and requiring an extra attribute for `#[rustc_const_not_exposed_on_stable]` or so. This would require a bunch of extra annotations, but would have the advantage that turning a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` into `#[rustc_const_stable]` will never change the way the function is const-checked. Currently, we often discover in the const stabilization PR that a function needs some other unstable const things, and then we rush to quickly deal with that. In this alternative universe, we'd work towards getting rid of the `rustc_const_not_exposed_on_stable` before stabilization, and once that is done stabilization becomes a trivial matter. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` would then only be used for intrinsics.
I think I like this idea, but might want to do it in a follow-up PR, as it will need a whole bunch of annotations in the standard library. Also, we probably want to convert all const intrinsics to the "new" form (`#[rustc_intrinsic]` instead of an `extern` block) before doing this to avoid having to deal with two different ways of declaring intrinsics.
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` `@rust-lang/libs-api`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129815 (but not finished since this is not yet sufficient to safely let us expose `const fn` from hashbrown)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131073 by making it so that const-stable functions are always stable
try-job: test-various
Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features
This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.
Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.
The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.
Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
Fixes#130210.
Since #124881, `ReentrantLock` uses `ThreadId` to identify threads. This has the unfortunate consequence of breaking uses of `Stdout` before main: Locking the `ReentrantLock` that synchronizes the output will initialize the thread ID before the handle for the main thread is set in `rt::init`. But since that would overwrite the current thread ID, `thread::set_current` triggers an abort.
This PR fixes the problem by using the already initialized thread ID for constructing the main thread handle and allowing `set_current` calls that do not change the thread's ID.
Hook up std::net to wasi-libc on wasm32-wasip2 target
One of the improvements of the `wasm32-wasip2` target over `wasm32-wasip1` is better support for networking. Right now, p2 is just re-using the `std::net` implementation from p1. This PR adds a new net module for p2 that makes use of net from `sys_common` and calls wasi-libc functions directly.
There are currently a few limitations:
- Duplicating a socket is not supported by WASIp2 (directly returns an error)
- Peeking is not yet implemented in wasi-libc (we could let wasi-libc handle this, but I opted to directly return an error instead)
- Vectored reads/writes are not supported by WASIp2 (the necessary functions are available in wasi-libc, but they call WASIp1 functions which do not support sockets, so I opted to directly return an error instead)
- Getting/setting `TCP_NODELAY` is faked in wasi-libc (uses the fake implementation instead of returning an error)
- Getting/setting `SO_LINGER` is not supported by WASIp2 (directly returns an error)
- Setting `SO_REUSEADDR` is faked in wasi-libc (since this is done from `sys_common`, the fake implementation is used instead of returning an error)
- Getting/setting `IPV6_V6ONLY` is not supported by WASIp2 and will always be set for IPv6 sockets (since this is done from `sys_common`, wasi-libc will return an error)
- UDP broadcast/multicast is not supported by WASIp2 (since this is configured from `sys_common`, wasi-libc will return appropriate errors)
- The `MSG_NOSIGNAL` send flag is a no-op because there are no signals in WASIp2 (since explicitly setting this flag would require a change to `sys_common` and the result would be exactly the same, I opted to not set it)
Do those decisions make sense?
While working on this PR, I noticed that there is a `std::os::wasi::net::TcpListenerExt` trait that adds a `sock_accept()` method to `std::net::TcpListener`. Now that WASIp2 supports standard accept, would it make sense to remove this?
cc `@alexcrichton`
Update `catch_unwind` doc comments for `c_unwind`
Updates `catch_unwind` doc comments to indicate that catching a foreign exception _will no longer_ be UB. Instead, there are two possible behaviors, though it is not specified which one an implementation will choose.
Nominated for t-lang to confirm that they are okay with making such a promise based on t-opsem FCP, or whether they would like to be included in the FCP.
Related: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74990, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115285, https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1226
