Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #67722 (Minor: note how Any is an unsafe trait in SAFETY comments)
- #68586 (Make conflicting_repr_hints a deny-by-default c-future-compat lint)
- #68598 (Fix null synthetic_implementors error)
- #68603 (Changelog: Demonstrate final build-override syntax)
- #68609 (Set lld flavor for MSVC to link.exe)
- #68611 (Correct ICE caused by macros generating invalid spans.)
- #68627 (Document that write_all will not call write if given an empty buffer)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
Detect use-after-scope bugs with AddressSanitizer
Enable use-after-scope checks by default when using AddressSanitizer.
They allow to detect incorrect use of stack objects after their scope
have already ended. The detection is based on LLVM lifetime intrinsics.
To facilitate the use of this functionality, the lifetime intrinsics are
now emitted regardless of optimization level if enabled sanitizer makes
use of them.
Rename `Alloc` to `AllocRef`
The allocator-wg has decided to merge this change upstream in https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/8#issuecomment-577122958.
This renames `Alloc` to `AllocRef` because types that implement `Alloc` are a reference, smart pointer, or ZSTs. It is not possible to have an allocator like `MyAlloc([u8; N])`, that owns the memory and also implements `Alloc`, since that would mean, that moving a `Vec<T, MyAlloc>` would need to correct the internal pointer, which is not possible as we don't have move constructors.
For further explanation please see https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-allocators/issues/8#issuecomment-489464843 and the comments after that one.
Additionally it clarifies the semantics of `Clone` on an allocator. In the case of `AllocRef`, it is clear that the cloned handle still points to the same allocator instance, and that you can free data allocated from one handle with another handle.
The initial proposal was to rename `Alloc` to `AllocHandle`, but `Ref` expresses the semantics better than `Handle`. Also, the only appearance of `Handle` in `std` are for windows specific resources, which might be confusing.
Blocked on https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/pull/1160
Suggest defining type parameter when appropriate
```
error[E0412]: cannot find type `T` in this scope
--> file.rs:3:12
|
3 | impl Trait<T> for Struct {}
| - ^ not found in this scope
| |
| help: you might be missing a type parameter: `<T>`
```
Fix#64298.
Stabilize `#[repr(transparent)]` on `enum`s in Rust 1.42.0
# Stabilization report
The following is the stabilization report for `#![feature(transparent_enums)]`.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/60405
[Version target](https://forge.rust-lang.org/#current-release-versions): 1.42 (2020-01-30 => beta, 2020-03-12 => stable).
## User guide
A `struct` with only a single non-ZST field (let's call it `foo`) can be marked as `#[repr(transparent)]`. Such a `struct` has the same layout and ABI as `foo`. Here, we also extend this ability to `enum`s with only one variant, subject to the same restrictions as for the equivalent `struct`. That is, you can now write:
```rust
#[repr(transparent)]
enum Foo { Bar(u8) }
```
which, in terms of layout and ABI, is equivalent to:
```rust
#[repr(transparent)]
struct Foo(u8);
```
## Motivation
This is not a major feature that will unlock new and important use-cases. The utility of `repr(transparent)` `enum`s is indeed limited. However, there is still some value in it:
1. It provides conceptual simplification of the language in terms of treating univariant `enum`s and `struct`s the same, as both are product types. Indeed, languages like Haskell only have `data` as the only way to construct user-defined ADTs in the language.
2. In rare occasions, it might be that the user started out with a univariant `enum` for whatever reason (e.g. they thought they might extend it later). Now they want to make this `enum` `transparent` without breaking users by turning it into a `struct`. By lifting the restriction here, now they can.
## Technical specification
The reference specifies [`repr(transparent)` on a `struct`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/type-layout.html#the-transparent-representation) as:
> ### The transparent Representation
>
> The `transparent` representation can only be used on `struct`s that have:
> - a single field with non-zero size, and
> - any number of fields with size 0 and alignment 1 (e.g. `PhantomData<T>`).
>
> Structs with this representation have the same layout and ABI as the single non-zero sized field.
>
> This is different than the `C` representation because a struct with the `C` representation will always have the ABI of a `C` `struct` while, for example, a struct with the `transparent` representation with a primitive field will have the ABI of the primitive field.
>
> Because this representation delegates type layout to another type, it cannot be used with any other representation.
Here, we amend this to include univariant `enum`s as well with the same static restrictions and the same effects on dynamic semantics.
## Tests
All the relevant tests are adjusted in the PR diff but are recounted here:
- `src/test/ui/repr/repr-transparent.rs` checks that `repr(transparent)` on an `enum` must be univariant, rather than having zero or more than one variant. Restrictions on the fields inside the only variants, like for those on `struct`s, are also checked here.
- A number of codegen tests are provided as well:
- `src/test/codegen/repr-transparent.rs` (the canonical test)
- `src/test/codegen/repr-transparent-aggregates-1.rs`
- `src/test/codegen/repr-transparent-aggregates-2.rs`
- `src/test/codegen/repr-transparent-aggregates-3.rs`
- `src/test/ui/lint/lint-ctypes-enum.rs` tests the interactions with the `improper_ctypes` lint.
## History
- 2019-04-30, RFC https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2645
Author: @mjbshaw
Reviewers: The Language Team
This is the RFC that proposes allowing `#[repr(transparent)]` on `enum`s and `union`.
- 2019-06-11, PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/60463
Author: @mjbshaw
Reviewers: @varkor and @rkruppe
The PR implements the RFC aforementioned in full.
- 2019, PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/67323
Author: @Centril
Reviewers: @davidtwco
The PR reorganizes the static checks taking advantage of the fact that `struct`s and `union`s are internally represented as ADTs with a single variant.
- This PR stabilizes `transparent_enums`.
## Related / possible future work
The remaining work here is to figure out the semantics of `#[repr(transparent)]` on `union`s and stabilize those. This work continues to be tracked in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/60405.
Enable use-after-scope checks by default when using AddressSanitizer.
They allow to detect incorrect use of stack objects after their scope
have already ended. The detection is based on LLVM lifetime intrinsics.
To facilitate the use of this functionality, the lifetime intrinsics are
now emitted regardless of optimization level if enabled sanitizer makes
use of them.
```
error[E0412]: cannot find type `T` in this scope
--> file.rs:3:12
|
3 | impl Trait<T> for Struct {}
| - ^ not found in this scope
| |
| help: you might be missing a type parameter: `<T>`
```
Fix#64298.
add a test for #60976
The test fails on 1.36.0 but passes on master.
Huge thanks for @hellow554 actually digging out the minimized version of the
repro.
Fixes#60976.
Do not ICE on multipart suggestions touching multiple files
When encountering a multipart suggestion with spans belonging to
different contexts, skip that suggestion.
Fix#68449. Similar to #68256.
rustc: Allow cdylibs to link against dylibs
Previously, rustc mandated that cdylibs could only link against rlibs as dependencies (not dylibs).
This commit disables that restriction and tests that it works in a simple case.
I don't have a windows rustc dev environment, so I guessed at the MSVC test code, I'm hoping the CI can run that for me.
Additionally, we might want to consider emitting (through cargo or rustc) some metadata to help C users of a cdylib figure out where all the dylibs they need are. I don't think that should be needed to land this change, as it will still be usable by homogeneous build systems without it.
My new test was templated off the `tests/run-make-fulldeps/cdylib` test. It seemed more appropriate to have it as a separate test, since both foo.rs and bar.rs would need to be replicated to make that test cover both cases, but I can do that if it would be preferred.
If I'm doing anything out of order/process, please let me know; this is only my second change to rustc and the prior one was trivial.
r? alexcrichton
