Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #130630 (Support clobber_abi and vector/access registers (clobber-only) in s390x inline assembly)
- #131042 (Instantiate binders in `supertrait_vtable_slot`)
- #131079 (Update wasm-component-ld to 0.5.9)
- #131085 (make test_lots_of_insertions test take less long in Miri)
- #131088 (add fixme to remove LLVM_ENABLE_TERMINFO when minimal llvm version is 19)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Instantiate binders in `supertrait_vtable_slot`
`supertrait_vtable_slot` was previously using structural equality when probing for the vtable slot, which led to an ICE since we need a *subtype* match, not an exact match.
Fixes#131027
r? lcnr
Stabilize expr_2021 fragment specifier in all editions
This is part of the `expr`/`expr_2021` fragment specifier for Edition 2024 (#123742). The RFC says we can support expr_2021 in as many editions as is practical, and there's nothing particularly hard about supporting it all the way back to 2015.
In editions 2021 and earlier, `expr` and `expr_2021` are synonyms. Their behavior diverges starting in Edition 2024. This is checked by the `expr_2021_inline_const.rs` test.
cc `@vincenzopalazzo` `@rust-lang/wg-macros` `@traviscross`
rustdoc: rewrite stability inheritance as a doc pass
Since doc inlining can almost arbitrarily change the module hierarchy, we can't just use the HIR ancestors of an item to compute its effective stability. This PR moves the stability inheritance that I implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130798 into a new doc pass `propagate-stability` that runs after doc inlining and uses the post-inlining ancestors of an item to correctly compute its effective stability.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131020
r? `@notriddle`
Add `field@` and `variant@` doc-link disambiguators
I'm not sure if this is big enough to need an fcp or not, but this is something I found missing when trying to refer to a field in macro-generated docs, not knowing if a method might be defined as well. Obviously, there are definitely other uses.
In the case where it's not disambiguated, methods (and I suppose other associated items in the value namespace) still take priority, which `@jyn514` said was an oversight but I think is probably the desired behavior 99% of the time anyway - shadowing a field with an accessor method is a very common pattern. If fields and methods with the same name started conflicting, it would be a breaking change. Though, to quote them:
> jyn: maybe you can break this only if both [the method and the field] are public
> jyn: rustc has some future-incompat warning level
> jyn: that gets through -A warnings and --cap-lints from cargo
That'd be out of scope of this PR, though.
Fixes#80283
make ptr metadata functions callable from stable const fn
So far this was done with a bunch of `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable`. But those should be the exception, not the norm. If we are confident we can expose the ptr metadata APIs *indirectly* in stable const fn, we should just mark them as `rustc_const_stable`. And we better be confident we can do that since it's already been done a while ago. ;)
In particular this marks two intrinsics as const-stable: `aggregate_raw_ptr`, `ptr_metadata`. This should be uncontroversial, they are trivial to implement in the interpreter.
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` `@rust-lang/lang`
Fix `adt_const_params` leaking `{type error}` in error msg
Fixes the confusing diagnostic described in #118179. (users would see `{type error}` in some situations, which is pretty weird)
`adt_const_params` tracking issue: #95174
Preserve brackets around if-lets and skip while-lets
r? `@jieyouxu`
Tracked by #124085
Fresh out of #129466, we have discovered 9 crates that the lint did not successfully migrate because the span of `if let` includes the surrounding brackets `(..)` like the following, which surprised me a bit.
```rust
if (if let .. { .. } else { .. }) {
// ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
// the span somehow includes the surrounding brackets
}
```
There is one crate that failed the migration because some suggestion spans cross the macro expansion boundaries. Surely there is no way to patch them with `match` rewrite. To handle this case, we will instead require all spans to be tested for admissibility as suggestion spans.
Besides, there are 4 false negative cases discovered with desugared-`while let`. We don't need to lint them, because the `else` branch surely contains exactly one statement because the drop order is not changed whatsoever in this case.
```rust
while let Some(value) = droppy().get() {
..
}
// is desugared into
loop {
if let Some(value) = droppy().get() {
..
} else {
break;
// here can be nothing observable in this block
}
}
```
I believe this is the one and only false positive that I have found. I think we have finally nailed all the corner cases this time.
Reject leading unsafe in `cfg!(...)` and `--check-cfg`
This PR reject leading unsafe in `cfg!(...)` and `--check-cfg`.
Fixes (after-backport) https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131055
r? `@jieyouxu`
make type-check-4 asm tests about non-const expressions
These tests recently got changed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129759. I asked the PR author to make the tests read from a `static mut` (rather than just making them "pass"), but I now think that was a mistake: previously the tests failed because the const was not a valid const expression, after the PR they failed because the const failed to evaluate.
So this PR restores the tests to "fail because the const is not a valid const expression". That can be done in a target-independent way so I unified the x86 and aarch64 tests into one.
Cc `@oli-obk` as the original [author](0d88631059) of these tests -- not sure if you still remember what they were intended to test.
properly elaborate effects implied bounds for super traits
Summary: This PR makes it so that we elaborate `<T as Tr>::Fx: EffectsCompat<somebool>` into `<T as SuperTr>::Fx: EffectsCompat<somebool>` when we know that `trait Tr: ~const SuperTr`.
Some discussion at https://github.com/rust-lang/project-const-traits/issues/2.
r? project-const-traits
`@rust-lang/project-const-traits:` how do we feel about this approach?
