Insert parentheses around binary operation with attribute
Fixes the bug found by `@fmease` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134661#pullrequestreview-2538983253.
Previously, `-Zunpretty=expanded` would expand this program as follows:
```rust
#![feature(stmt_expr_attributes)]
#![allow(unused_attributes)]
macro_rules! group {
($e:expr) => {
$e
};
}
macro_rules! extra {
($e:expr) => {
#[allow()] $e
};
}
fn main() {
let _ = #[allow()] 1 + 1;
let _ = group!(#[allow()] 1) + 1;
let _ = 1 + group!(#[allow()] 1);
let _ = extra!({ 0 }) + 1;
let _ = extra!({ 0 } + 1);
}
```
```console
let _ = #[allow()] 1 + 1;
let _ = #[allow()] 1 + 1;
let _ = 1 + #[allow()] 1;
let _ = #[allow()] { 0 } + 1;
let _ = #[allow()] { 0 } + 1;
```
The first 4 statements are the correct expansion, but the last one is not. The attribute is supposed to apply to the entire binary operation, not only to the left operand.
After this PR, the 5th statement will expand to:
```console
let _ = #[allow()] ({ 0 } + 1);
```
In the future, as some subset of `stmt_expr_attributes` approaches stabilization, it is possible that we will need to do parenthesization for a number of additional cases depending on the outcome of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127436. But for now, at least this PR makes the pretty-printer align with the current behavior of the parser.
r? fmease
correct template for `#[align]` attribute
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82232
related: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/142507
I didn't fully understand what `template!` did, clearly. An empty `#[align]` attribute was still rejected later, but without this change it does get suggested in certain cases.
I've also updated some outdated references to `#[repr(align)]` on functions.
r? ``@jdonszelmann``
Alternative candidates for a trait implementation are not printed when
the trait has a diagnostic name, to avoid printing alternatives for
common stdlib traits such as `Copy` or `Debug`. However, this affects
all traits for which a diagnostic item is added.
Here, the list of alternatives candidates for `Step` does not seem
useful, and `Step` is unstable, so this will not be missed.
Extract some shared code from codegen backend target feature handling
There's a bunch of code duplication between the GCC and LLVM backends in target feature handling. This moves that into new shared helper functions in `rustc_codegen_ssa`.
The first two commits should be purely refactoring. I am fairly sure the LLVM-side behavior stays the same; if the GCC side deliberately diverges from this then I may have missed that. I did account for one divergence, which I do not know is deliberate or not: GCC does not seem to use the `-Ctarget-feature` flag to populate `cfg(target_feature)`. That seems odd, since the `-Ctarget-feature` flag is used to populate the return value of `global_gcc_features` which controls the target features actually used by GCC. ``@GuillaumeGomez`` ``@antoyo`` is there a reason `target_config` ignores `-Ctarget-feature` but `global_gcc_features` does not? The second commit also cleans up a bunch of unneeded complexity added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135927.
The third commit extracts some shared logic out of the functions that populate `cfg(target_feature)` and the backend target feature set, respectively. This one actually has some slight functional changes:
- Before, with `-Ctarget-feature=-feat`, if there is some other feature `x` that implies `feat` we would *not* add `-x` to the backend target feature set. Now, we do. This fixesrust-lang/rust#134792.
- The logic that removes `x` from `cfg(target_feature)` in this case also changed a bit, avoiding a large number of calls to the (uncached) `sess.target.implied_target_features` (if there were a large number of positive features listed before a negative feature) but instead constructing a full inverse implication map when encountering the first negative feature. Ideally this would be done with queries but the backend target feature logic runs before `tcx` so we can't use that...
- Previously, if feature "a" implied "b" and "b" was unstable, then using `-Ctarget-feature=+a` would also emit a warning about `b`. I had to remove this since when accounting for negative implications, this emits a ton of warnings in a bunch of existing tests... I assume this was unintentional anyway.
The fourth commit increases consistency of the GCC backend with the LLVM backend.
The last commit does some further cleanup:
- Get rid of RUSTC_SPECIAL_FEATURES. It was only needed for s390x "backchain", but since LLVM 19 that is always a regular target feature so we don't need this hack any more. The hack also has various unintended side-effects so we don't want to keep it. Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/142412.
- Move RUSTC_SPECIFIC_FEATURES handling into the shared parse_rust_feature_flag helper so all consumers of `-Ctarget-feature` that only care about actual target features (and not "crt-static") have it. Previously, we actually set `cfg(target_feature = "crt-static")` twice: once in the backend target feature logic, and once specifically for that one feature. IIUC, some targets are meant to ignore `-Ctarget-feature=+crt-static`, it seems like before this PR that flag still incorrectly enabled `cfg(target_feature = "crt-static")` (but I didn't test this).
- Move fixed_x18 handling together with retpoline handling.
- Forbid setting fixed_x18 as a regular target feature, even unstably. It must be set via the `-Z` flag.
``@bjorn3`` I did not touch the cranelift backend here, since AFAIK it doesn't really support target features. But if you ever do, please use the new helpers. :)
Cc ``@workingjubilee``
rewrite `optimize` attribute to use new attribute parsing infrastructure
r? ```@oli-obk```
I'm afraid we'll get quite a few of these PRs in the future. If we get a lot of trivial changes I'll start merging multiple into one PR. They should be easy to review :)
Waiting on #138165 first
For things that only change the valid ranges, we can just skip the `LLVMBuildBitCast` call.
I tried to tweak this a bit more and broke stuff, so I also added some extra tests for that as we apparently didn't have coverage.
`{{root}}` is supposed to be an internal-only name but it shows up in
the output.
(I'm working towards a more general fix -- a universal "joiner" function
that can be used all over the place -- but I'm not there yet, so let's
fix this one in-place for now.)
Use the same error as other invalid types for `concat_bytes!`, rather
than using `ConcatCStrLit` from `concat!`. Also add more information
with a note about why this doesn't work, and a suggestion to use a
null-terminated byte string instead.
Enable automatic cross-compilation in run-make tests
Supersedes rust-lang/rust#138066.
Blocker for rust-lang/rust#141856.
Based on rust-lang/rust#138066 plus `rustdoc()` cross-compile changes.
### Summary
This PR automatically specifies `--target` to `rustc()` and `rustdoc()` to have `rustc`/`rustdoc` produce cross-compiled artifacts in run-make tests by default, unless:
- `//@ ignore-cross-compile` is used, or
- `bare_{rustc,rustdoc}` are used, or
- Explicit `.target()` is specified, which overrides the default cross-compile target.
Some tests are necessarily modified:
- Tests that have `.target(target())` have that incantation removed (since this is now automatically the default).
- Some tests have `//@ needs-target-std`, but are a necessary-but-insufficient condition, and are changed to `//@ ignore-cross-compile` instead as host-only tests.
- A few tests received `//@ ignore-musl` that fail against `x86_64-unknown-linux-musl` because of inability to find `-lunwind`. AFAICT, they don't *need* to test cross-compiled artifacts.
- Some tests are constrained to host-only for now, because the effort to make them pass on cross-compile does not seem worth the complexity, and it's not really *meaningfully* improving test coverage.
try-job: dist-various-1
This does change the logic a bit: previously, we didn't forward reverse
implications of negated features to the backend, instead relying on the backend
to handle the implication itself.
Add a missing colon at the end of the panic location details in location-detail-unwrap-multiline.rs
The `location-detail-unwrap-multiline` test was failing when trying to enable `aarch64-pc-windows-msvc` CI Runners: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140136#issuecomment-2978175728
When debugging, the normalized stderr was:
```
thread 'main' panicked at $DIR/location-detail-unwrap-multiline.rs:11:10:
called `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value
stack backtrace:
note: Some details are omitted, run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=full` for a verbose backtrace.
```
Note the trailing colon at the end of the location details in the panic message. This was missing in the error pattern regex. No idea why it has been passing for all other targets and failed for `aarch64-pc-windows-msvc`, but with the trailing colon it is now passing for all.
AsyncDrop trait without sync Drop generates an error
When type implements `AsyncDrop` trait, it must also implement sync `Drop` trait to be used in sync context and unwinds.
This PR adds error generation in such a case.
Fixes: rust-lang/rust#140696
use `#[align]` attribute for `fn_align`
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82232https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3806 decides to add the `#[align]` attribute for alignment of various items. Right now it's used for functions with `fn_align`, in the future it will get more uses (statics, struct fields, etc.)
(the RFC finishes FCP today)
r? `@ghost`
Don't build `ParamEnv` and do trait solving in `ItemCtxt`s when lowering IATs
Fixesrust-lang/rust#108491Fixesrust-lang/rust#125879
This was due to updating inhabited predicate stuff which I had to do to make constructing ADTs with IATs in fields not ICE
Fixesrust-lang/rust#136678 (but no test added, I don't rly care about weird IAT edge cases under GCE)
Fixesrust-lang/rust#138131
Avoids doing "fully correct" candidate selection for IATs during hir ty lowering when in item signatures as it almost always leads to a query cycle from trying to build a `ParamEnv`. I replaced it with a use `DeepRejectCtxt` which should be able to handle this kind of conservative "could these types unify" while in a context where we don't want to do type equality.
This is a relatively simple scheme and should be forwards compatible with doing something more complex/powerful.
I'm not really sure how this interacts with rust-lang/rust#126651, though I'm also not really sure its super important to support projecting IATs from IAT self types given we don't even support `T::Assoc::Other` for trait-associated types so didn't give much thought to how this might fit in with that.
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@fmease`
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- rust-lang/rust#135656 (Add `-Z hint-mostly-unused` to tell rustc that most of a crate will go unused)
- rust-lang/rust#138237 (Get rid of `EscapeDebugInner`.)
- rust-lang/rust#141614 (lint direct use of rustc_type_ir )
- rust-lang/rust#142123 (Implement initial support for timing sections (`--json=timings`))
- rust-lang/rust#142377 (Try unremapping compiler sources)
- rust-lang/rust#142674 (remove duplicate crash test)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Affirm `-Cforce-frame-pointers=off` does not override
This PR exists to document that we (that is, the compiler reviewer) implicitly made a decision in rust-lang/rust#86652 that defies the expectations of some programmers. Some programmers believe `-Cforce-frame-pointers=false` should obey the programmer in all cases, forcing the compiler to avoid generating frame pointers, even if the target specification would indicate they must be generated. However, many targets rely on frame pointers for fast or sound unwinding.
T-compiler had a weekly triage meeting on 2025-05-22. This topic was put to discussion because some programmers may expect the target-overriding behavior. In that meeting we decided removing frame pointers, at least with regards to the contract of the `-Cforce-frame-pointers` option, is not required, even if `=off` is passed, and that we will not do so if the target would expect them. This follows from the documentation here: https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/codegen-options/index.html#force-frame-pointers
We may separately pursue trying to clarify the situation more emphatically in our documentation, or warn when people pass the option when it doesn't do anything.
This commit adds a lint to prevent the use of rustc_type_ir in random
compiler crates, except for type system internals traits, which are
explicitly allowed. Moreover, this fixes diagnostic_items() to include
the CRATE_OWNER_ID, otherwise rustc_diagnostic_item attribute is ignored
on the crate root.
Change __rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable to be a function
This fixes a long sequence of issues:
1. A customer reported that building for Arm64EC was broken: #138541
2. This was caused by a bug in my original implementation of Arm64EC support, namely that only functions on Arm64EC need to be decorated with `#` but Rust was decorating statics as well.
3. Once I corrected Rust to only decorate functions, I started linking failures where the linker couldn't find statics exported by dylib dependencies. This was caused by the compiler not marking exported statics in the generated DEF file with `DATA`, thus they were being exported as functions not data.
4. Once I corrected the way that the DEF files were being emitted, the linker started failing saying that it couldn't find `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable`. This is because the MSVC linker requires the declarations of statics imported from other dylibs to be marked with `dllimport` (whereas it will happily link to functions imported from other dylibs whether they are marked `dllimport` or not).
5. I then made a change to ensure that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport`, but the MSVC linker started emitting warnings that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` was marked as `dllimport` but was declared in an obj file. This is a harmless warning which is a performance hint: anything that's marked `dllimport` must be indirected via an `__imp` symbol so I added a linker arg in the target to suppress the warning.
6. A customer then reported a similar warning when using `lld-link` (<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140176#issuecomment-2872448443>). I don't think it was an implementation difference between the two linkers but rather that, depending on the obj that the declaration versus uses of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` landed in we would get different warnings, so I suppressed that warning as well: #140954.
7. Another customer reported that they weren't using the Rust compiler to invoke the linker, thus these warnings were breaking their build: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140176#issuecomment-2881867433>. At that point, my original change was reverted (#141024) leaving Arm64EC broken yet again.
Taking a step back, a lot of these linker issues arise from the fact that `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` is marked as `extern "Rust"` in the standard library and, therefore, assumed to be a foreign item from a different crate BUT the Rust compiler may choose to generate it either in the current crate, some other crate that will be statically linked in OR some other crate that will by dynamically imported.
Worse yet, it is impossible while building a given crate to know if `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` will statically linked or dynamically imported: it might be that one of its dependent crates is the one with an allocator kind set and thus that crate (which is compiled later) will decide depending if it has any dylib dependencies or not to import `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` or generate it. Thus, there is no way to know if the declaration of `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` should be marked with `dllimport` or not.
There is a simple fix for all this: there is no reason `__rust_no_alloc_shim_is_unstable` must be a static. It needs to be some symbol that must be linked in; thus, it could easily be a function instead. As a function, there is no need to mark it as `dllimport` when dynamically imported which avoids the entire mess above.
There may be a perf hit for changing the `volatile load` to be a `tail call`, so I'm happy to change that part back (although I question what the codegen of a `volatile load` would look like, and if the backend is going to try to use load-acquire semantics).
Build with this change applied BEFORE #140176 was reverted to demonstrate that there are no linking issues with either MSVC or MinGW: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/15078657205>
Incidentally, I fixed `tests/run-make/no-alloc-shim` to work with MSVC as I needed it to be able to test locally (FYI for #128602)
r? `@bjorn3`
cc `@jieyouxu`
