Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #101967 (Move `unix_socket_abstract` feature API to `SocketAddrExt`.)
- #102470 (Stabilize const char convert)
- #104223 (Recover from function pointer types with generic parameter list)
- #104229 (Don't print full paths in overlap errors)
- #104294 (Don't ICE with inline const errors during MIR build)
- #104332 (Fixed some `_i32` notation in `maybe_uninit`’s doc)
- #104349 (fix some typos in comments)
- #104350 (Fix x finding Python on Windows)
- #104356 (interpret: make check_mplace public)
- #104364 (rustdoc: Resolve doc links in external traits having local impls)
- #104378 (Bump chalk to v0.87)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Remove unused symbols and diagnostic items
As the title suggests, this removes unused symbols from `sym::` and `#[rustc_diagnostic_item]` annotations that weren't mentioned anywhere.
Originally I tried to use grep, to find symbols and item names that are never mentioned via `sym::name`, however this produced a lot of false positives (?), for example clippy matching on `Symbol::as_str` or macros "implicitly" adding `sym::`. I ended up fixing all these false positives (?) by hand, but tbh I'm not sure if it was worth it...
Wrap bundled static libraries into object files
Fixes#103044 (not sure, couldn't test locally)
Bundled static libraries should be wrapped into object files as it's done for metadata file.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Don't print full paths in overlap errors
We don't print the full path in other diagnostics -- I don't think it particularly helps with the error message. I also delayed the printing until actually needing to render the error message.
r? diagnostics
Recover from function pointer types with generic parameter list
Give a more helpful error when encountering function pointer types with a generic parameter list like `fn<'a>(&'a str) -> bool` or `fn<T>(T) -> T` and suggest moving lifetime parameters to a `for<>` parameter list.
I've added a bunch of extra code to properly handle (unlikely?) corner cases like `for<'a> fn<'b>()` (where there already exists a `for<>` parameter list) correctly suggesting `for<'a, 'b> fn()` (merging the lists). If you deem this useless, I can simplify the code by suggesting nothing at all in this case.
I am quite open to suggestions regarding the wording of the diagnostic messages.
Fixes#103487.
``@rustbot`` label A-diagnostics
r? diagnostics
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #103709 (ci: Upgrade dist-x86_64-netbsd to NetBSD 9.0)
- #103744 (Upgrade cc for working is_flag_supported on cross-compiles)
- #104105 (llvm: dwo only emitted when object code emitted)
- #104158 (Return .efi extension for EFI executable)
- #104181 (Add a few known-bug tests)
- #104266 (Regression test for coercion of mut-ref to dyn-star)
- #104300 (Document `Path::parent` behavior around relative paths)
- #104304 (Enable profiler in dist-s390x-linux)
- #104362 (Add `delay_span_bug` to `AttrWrapper::take_for_recovery`)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add `delay_span_bug` to `AttrWrapper::take_for_recovery`
`take_for_recovery` should only be used for recovery (when we should already have an error), so using `delay_span_bug` seems appropriate.
cc `@Aaron1011` (you've added the `FIXME` that this pr fixes)
llvm: dwo only emitted when object code emitted
Fixes#103932.
`CompiledModule` should not think a DWARF object was emitted when a bitcode-only compilation has happened, this can confuse archive file creation (which expects to create an archive containing non-existent dwo files).
r? ``````@michaelwoerister``````
ci: Upgrade dist-x86_64-netbsd to NetBSD 9.0
This is another step in toolchain upgrades for LLVM 16, which will need at least GCC 7.1.
Our previous NetBSD 8.0 cross-toolchain used its system GCC 5.5. While there are newer versions available in pkgsrc, I could not get those working for cross-compilation. Upgrading to NetBSD 9.0 gets us GCC 7.4, which is sufficient for now.
This will affect the compatibility of the build we ship for `x86_64-unknown-netbsd`, but others may still build their own from source if that is needed. It is expected that NetBSD 8 will reach EOL soon anyway, approximately one month after 10 is released, but there is no firm date for that.
