Revert "Populate effective visibilities in `rustc_privacy`"
This reverts commit cff85f22f5, cc #110907. It needs to be fixed, but there are too many issues being reported that I wanted to put up a revert until a proper fix can be committed.
Fixes a ton of issues where private but still reachable impls were missing during codegen:
Fixes#111320Fixes#111321Fixes#111334Fixes#111357Fixes#111368Fixes#111373Fixes#111377Fixes#111386Fixes#111387
`@bors` p=1
r? `@petrochenkov`
This trait ref is derived from the self type and then equated to the
trait ref from the obligation.
For example, for `fn(): Fn(u32)`, `self_ty_trait_ref` is `Fn()`, which
is then equated to `Fn(u32)` (which will fail, causing the obligation to
fail).
`SelectionError` used to be 80 bytes (on 64 bit). That's quite big.
Especially because the selection cache contained `Result<_,
SelectionError>. The Ok type is only 32 bytes, so the 80 bytes
significantly inflate the size of the cache.
Most variants of the `SelectionError` seem to be hard errors, only
`Unimplemented` shows up in practice (for cranelift-codegen, it occupies
23.4% of all cache entries). We can just box away the biggest variant,
`OutputTypeParameterMismatch`, to get the size down to 16 bytes, well
within the size of the Ok type inside the cache.
Min specialization improvements
- Don't allow specialization impls with no items, such implementations are probably not correct and only occur as mistakes in the compiler and standard library
- Fix a missing normalization call
- Adds spans for lifetime errors from overly general specializations
Closes#79457Closes#109815
Implement builtin # syntax and use it for offset_of!(...)
Add `builtin #` syntax to the parser, as well as a generic infrastructure to support both item and expression position builtin syntaxes. The PR also uses this infrastructure for the implementation of the `offset_of!` macro, added by #106934.
cc `@petrochenkov` `@DrMeepster`
cc #110680 `builtin #` tracking issue
cc #106655 `offset_of!` tracking issue
tweak "make mut" spans when assigning to locals
Work towards fixing #106857
This PR just cleans up a lot of spans which is helpful before properly fixing the issues. Best reviewed commit-by-commit.
r? `@estebank`
Tweak borrow suggestion span
Avoids a `span_to_snippet` call when we don't need to surround the expression in parentheses. The fact that the suggestion was using the whole span of the expression rather than just appending a `&` was prevented me from using `// run-rustfix` in another PR (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110432#discussion_r1170500484).
Also some drive-by renames of functions that have been annoying me for a bit.
Add GNU Property Note
Fix#103001
Generates the missing property note:
```
Displaying notes found in: .note.gnu.property
Owner Data size Description
GNU 0x00000010 NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0 Properties: x86 feature: IBT
```
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #104070 (Prevent aborting guard from aborting the process in a forced unwind)
- #109410 (Introduce `AliasKind::Inherent` for inherent associated types)
- #111004 (Migrate `mir_transform` to translatable diagnostics)
- #111118 (Suggest struct when we get colon in fileds in enum)
- #111170 (Diagnostic args are still args if they're documented)
- #111354 (Fix miscompilation when calling default methods on `Future`)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Disable nrvo mir opt
See #111005 and #110902 . The ICE can definitely be hit on stable, the miscompilation I'm not sure about. The pass makes some pretty sketchy assumptions though, and we should not have it on while that's the case.
I'm not going to work on actually fixing this, it's probably not excessively difficult though.
r? rust-lang/mir-opt
This reverts #46722, commit e0ab5d5feb.
Since #111167, commit 10b69dde3f, we are
generating DWARF subprograms in a way that is meant to be more compatible
with LLVM's expectations, so hopefully we don't need this workaround
rewriting CUs anymore.
Fix miscompilation when calling default methods on `Future`
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111264 I discovered a lingering miscompilation when calling a default method on `Future` (none currently exist). https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111279 added a debug assertion, which sadly doesn't help much since to my knowledge stage0 is not built with them enabled, and it still doesn't make default methods work like they should.
This PR fixes `resolve_instance` to resolve default methods on `Future` correctly, allowing library contributors to add `Future` combinators without running into ICEs or miscompilations. I've tested this as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111347, but no test is included here (assuming that future methods include their own tests that would cover this sufficiently).
r? `@compiler-errors`
Introduce `AliasKind::Inherent` for inherent associated types
Allows us to check (possibly generic) inherent associated types for well-formedness.
Type inference now also works properly.
Follow-up to #105961. Supersedes #108430.
Fixes#106722.
Fixes#108957.
Fixes#109768.
Fixes#109789.
Fixes#109790.
~Not to be merged before #108860 (`AliasKind::Weak`).~
CC `@jackh726`
r? `@compiler-errors`
`@rustbot` label T-types F-inherent_associated_types
ConstProp into PlaceElem::Index.
Noticed this while looking at keccak output MIR.
This pass aims to replace `ProjectionElem::Index` with `ProjectionElem::ConstantIndex` during ConstProp.
r? `@ghost`
Mark s390x condition code register as clobbered in inline assembly
Various s390x instructions (arithmetic operations, logical operations, comparisons, etc. see also "Condition Codes" section in [z/Architecture Reference Summary](https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/zarchitecture-reference-summary)) modify condition code register `cc`, but AFAIK there is currently no way to mark it as clobbered in `asm!`.
`cc` register definition in LLVM:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/Target/SystemZ/SystemZRegisterInfo.td#L320
This PR also updates asm_experimental_arch docs in the unstable-book to mention s390x registers.
cc `@uweigand`
r? `@Amanieu`
Don't compute trait super bounds unless they're positive
Fixes#111207
The comment is modified to explain the rationale for why we even have this recursive call to supertraits in the first place, which doesn't apply to negative bounds since they don't elaborate at all.
