Rollup of 10 pull requests
Successful merges:
- rust-lang/rust#142270 (Rustdoc js: even more typechecking improvements)
- rust-lang/rust#142420 (Report infer ty errors during hir ty lowering)
- rust-lang/rust#142671 (add #![rustc_no_implicit_bounds])
- rust-lang/rust#142721 (Add tracing to `InterpCx::layout_of()` )
- rust-lang/rust#142818 (Port `#[used]` to new attribute parsing infrastructure)
- rust-lang/rust#143020 (codegen_fn_attrs: make comment more precise)
- rust-lang/rust#143051 (Add tracing to `validate_operand`)
- rust-lang/rust#143060 (Only args in main diag are saved and restored without removing the newly added ones)
- rust-lang/rust#143065 (Improve recovery when users write `where:`)
- rust-lang/rust#143084 (const-eval: error when initializing a static writes to that static)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
const-eval: error when initializing a static writes to that static
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/142404 by also calling the relevant hook for writes, not just reads. To avoid erroring during the actual write of the initial value, we neuter the hook when popping the final stack frame.
Calling the hook during writes requires changing its signature since we cannot pass in the entire interpreter any more.
While doing this I also realized a gap in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/142575 for zero-sized copies on the read side, so I fixed that and added a test.
r? `@oli-obk`
Improve recovery when users write `where:`
Improve recovery of `where:`.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/143023
The erroneous suggestion was because we were seeing `:` then a type, which the original impl thought must be a struct field. Make this a bit more accurate by checking for a non-reserved ident (which should be a field name).
Also, make a custom parser error for `where:` so we can continue parsing after the colon.
add #![rustc_no_implicit_bounds]
Follow-up from rust-lang/rust#137944.
Adds a new `rustc_attrs` attribute that stops rustc from adding any default bounds. Useful for tests where default bounds just add noise and make debugging harder.
After reviewing all tests with `?Sized`, these tests seem like they could probably benefit from `#![rustc_no_implicit_bounds]`.
- Skipping most of `tests/ui/unsized` as these seem to want to test `?Sized`
- Skipping tests that used `Box<T>` because it's still bound by `T: MetaSized`
- Skipping parsing or other tests that cared about `?Sized` syntactically
- Skipping tests for `derive(CoercePointee)` because this appears to check that the pointee type is relaxed with `?Sized` explicitly
r? `@lcnr`
Stop collecting unmentioned constants
This avoids generating useless dead LLVM IR. This appears to have regressed and/or been introduced in rust-lang/rust#53821 (unfortunately a very large PR - I don't see any direct discussion there of this particular change), but as far as I can tell is at least no longer necessary -- or we lack test coverage -- because none of our UI tests indicate diagnostics regressions. The adjusted codegen-units test has comments explicitly noting that these items should *not* be collected ("These are not referenced, so they do not produce mono-items").
I noticed this while looking at libcore LLVM IR we generate, which contained dead code references to the NOOP Waker item, which is never used inside libcore. Producing LLVM IR for it during libcore's compilation, only for that IR to get deleted by LLVM as unused, isn't useful. Note that the IR is generally all marked internal, too.
Similar to the existing nullpointer and alignment checks, this checks
for valid enum discriminants on creation of enums through unsafe
transmutes. Essentially this sanitizes patterns like the following:
```rust
let val: MyEnum = unsafe { std::mem::transmute<u32, MyEnum>(42) };
```
An extension of this check will be done in a follow-up that explicitly
sanitizes for extern enum values that come into Rust from e.g. C/C++.
This check is similar to Miri's capabilities of checking for valid
construction of enum values.
This PR is inspired by saethlin@'s PR
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104862. Thank you so much for
keeping this code up and the detailed comments!
I also pair-programmed large parts of this together with vabr-g@.
This centralizes the placeholder type error reporting in one location, but it also exposes the granularity at which we convert things from hir to ty more. E.g. previously infer types in where bounds were errored together with the function signature, but now they are independent.
After reviewing all tests with `?Sized` and discussing with lcnr, these
tests seem like they could probably benefit from
`#![rustc_no_implicit_bounds]`.
Move an ACE test out of the GCI directory
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122988, a test pertaining to `associated_const_equality` was placed into the directory meant for `generic_const_items`. Let's move it where it belongs.
While at it, I took the time to further minimize the test and to add a description. You can use 1.67.1 (as reported in rust-lang/rust#108220) to verify that I didn't butcher it. For additional context, the issue was likely fixed in rust-lang/rust#112718 (but I'm also cc'ing rust-lang/rust#140467 which further fixed things up and has more context).
I only performed quick and dirty git/GitHub archeology, so I don't have the full picture here. For one, I'm not even sure if this regression test is worth it.
Anyway, I just want it gone from the GCI dir :)
Port `#[export_name]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructure
This PR contains two changes, in separate commits for reviewability:
- Ports `export_name` to the new attribute parsing infrastructure for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131229#issuecomment-2971353197
- Moves the check for mixing export_name/no_mangle to check_attr.rs and improve the error message, which previously had a mix of 2021/2024 edition syntax
r? ``@jdonszelmann``
[perf] Compute hard errors without diagnostics in impl_intersection_has_impossible_obligation
First compute hard errors without diagnostics, then ambiguities with diagnostics since we need to know if any of them overflowed.
const-eval: allow constants to refer to mutable/external memory, but reject such constants as patterns
This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140653 by accepting code such as this:
```rust
static FOO: AtomicU32 = AtomicU32::new(0);
const C: &'static AtomicU32 = &FOO;
```
This can be written entirely in safe code, so there can't really be anything wrong with it.
We also accept the much more questionable following code, since it looks very similar to the interpreter:
```rust
static mut FOO2: u32 = 0;
const C2: &'static u32 = unsafe { &mut FOO2 };
```
Using this without causing UB is at least very hard (the details are unclear since it is related to how the aliasing model deals with the staging of const-eval vs runtime code).
If a constant like `C2` is used as a pattern, we emit an error:
```
error: constant BAD_PATTERN cannot be used as pattern
--> $DIR/const_refs_to_static_fail.rs:30:9
|
LL | BAD_PATTERN => {},
| ^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: constants that reference mutable or external memory cannot be used as pattern
```
(If you somehow manage to build a pattern with constant `C`, you'd get the same error, but that should be impossible: we don't have a type that can be used in patterns and that has interior mutability.)
The same treatment is afforded for shared references to `extern static`, for the same reason: the const evaluation is entirely fine with it, we just can't build a pattern for it -- and when using interior mutability, this can be totally sound.
We do still not accept anything where there is an `&mut` in the final value of the const, as that should always require unsafe code and it's hard to imagine a sound use-case that would require this.
The `macro_rules!` parser was written to match the series of rules using
the macros-by-example (MBE) engine and a hand-written equivalent of the
left-hand side of a MBE macro. This was complex to read, difficult to
extend, and produced confusing error messages. Because it was using the
MBE engine, any parse failure would be reported as if some macro was
being applied to the `macro_rules!` invocation itself; for instance,
errors would talk about "macro invocation", "macro arguments", and
"macro call", when they were actually about the macro *definition*.
And in practice, the `macro_rules!` parser only used the MBE engine to
extract the left-hand side and right-hand side of each rule as a token
tree, and then parsed the rest using a separate parser.
Rewrite it to parse the series of rules using a simple loop, instead.
This makes it more extensible in the future, and improves error
messages. For instance, omitting a semicolon between rules will result
in "expected `;`" and "unexpected token", rather than the confusing "no
rules expected this token in macro call".
This work was greatly aided by pair programming with Vincenzo Palazzo
and Eric Holk.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- rust-lang/rust#124595 (Suggest cloning `Arc` moved into closure)
- rust-lang/rust#139594 (Simplify `ObligationCauseCode::IfExpression`)
- rust-lang/rust#141311 (make `tidy-alphabetical` use a natural sort)
- rust-lang/rust#141648 ([rustdoc] Do not emit redundant_explicit_links lint if the doc comment comes from expansion)
- rust-lang/rust#142285 (tests: Do not run afoul of asm.validity.non-exhaustive in input-stats)
- rust-lang/rust#142393 (Don't give APITs names with macro expansion placeholder fragments in it)
- rust-lang/rust#142884 (StableMIR: Add method to retrieve body of coroutine)
- rust-lang/rust#142981 (Make missing lifetime suggestion verbose)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Make missing lifetime suggestion verbose
I keep seeing this suggestion when working on rustc, and it's annoying that it's inline. Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/141973. Feel free to close this if there's another PR already doing this.
r? ``@estebank``
Don't give APITs names with macro expansion placeholder fragments in it
The `DefCollector` previously called `pprust::ty_to_string` to construct a name for APITs (arg-position impl traits). The `ast::Ty` that was being formatted however has already had its macro calls replaced with "placeholder fragments", which end up rendering like `!()` (or ICEing, in the case of rust-lang/rust#140333, since it led to a placeholder struct field with no name).
Instead, collect the name of the APIT *before* we visit its macros and replace them with placeholders in the macro expander. This makes the implementation a bit more involved, but AFAICT there's no better way to do this since we can't do a reverse mapping from placeholder fragment -> original macro call AST.
Fixesrust-lang/rust#140333
tests: Do not run afoul of asm.validity.non-exhaustive in input-stats
This addresses one of the three powerpc64-unknown-linux-musl test failures in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/142280
I was motivated to cover it myself because technically this is also compile-time UB if we compile a program that has `asm!` with x86-64-specific instructions on another platform. That'll only mean something if this is ever switched to build-pass, or if checking emits object code, but conveniently "nop" is valid assembly on all platforms anyone has implemented Rust codegen for. Even the weird ones LLVM doesn't support, like PA-RISC or Common Intermediate Language.
...except GPUs. Not sure about those.
r? ```@nnethercote```
[rustdoc] Do not emit redundant_explicit_links lint if the doc comment comes from expansion
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/141553.
The problem was that we change the context for the attributes in some cases to get better error output, preventing us to detect if the attribute comes from expansion. Most of the changes are about keeping track of the "does this span comes from expansion" information.
r? ```@Manishearth```
Simplify `ObligationCauseCode::IfExpression`
This originally started out as an experiment to do less incremental invalidation by deferring the span operations that happen on the good path in `check_expr_if`, but it ended up not helping much (or at least not showing up in our incremental tests).
As a side-effect though, I think the code is a lot cleaner and there are modest diagnostics improvements with overlapping spans, so I think it's still worth landing.
Suggest cloning `Arc` moved into closure
```
error[E0382]: borrow of moved value: `x`
--> $DIR/moves-based-on-type-capture-clause-bad.rs:9:20
|
LL | let x = "Hello world!".to_string();
| - move occurs because `x` has type `String`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
LL | thread::spawn(move || {
| ------- value moved into closure here
LL | println!("{}", x);
| - variable moved due to use in closure
LL | });
LL | println!("{}", x);
| ^ value borrowed here after move
|
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::format_args_nl` which comes from the expansion of the macro `println` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
help: consider cloning the value before moving it into the closure
|
LL ~ let value = x.clone();
LL ~ thread::spawn(move || {
LL ~ println!("{}", value);
|
```
Fixrust-lang/rust#104232.
Add edition checks for some tests that had divergent output
In order to expose edition dependent divergences in some tests in the test suite, add explicit `edition` annotations. Some of these tests might require additional work to *avoid* the divergences, as they might have been unintentional. These are not exhaustive changes, purely opportunistic while I was looking at something else.
