Handle another negated literal in `eat_token_lit`.
Extends the change from #139653, which was on expressions, to literals.
Fixes#140098.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
improve diagnostic for raw pointer field access with ->
This PR enhances the error messages emitted by the Rust compiler when users attempt to use the `->` operator for field access on raw pointers or when dereferencing is needed. The changes aim to provide clearer guidance, by suggesting the correct use of the `.` operator and explicit dereferencing.
**Before:**
```
help: `xs` is a raw pointer; try dereferencing it
|
LL | (*xs)->count += 1;
| ++ +
```
**Now:**
```
help: use `.` on a dereferenced raw pointer instead
|
LL - xs->count += 1;
LL + (*xs).count += 1;
|
```
I added extra clarification in the message. Since this error occurs in the parser, we can't be certain that the type is a raw pointer. That's why the message includes only a small note in brackets. (In contrast, the message above is emitted in HIR, where we *can* check whether it's a raw pointer.)
**Before:**
```
--> main.rs:11:11
|
11 | xs->count += 1;
| ^^
|
= help: the . operator will dereference the value if needed
```
**After:**
```
--> main.rs:11:11
|
11 | xs->count += 1;
| ^^
|
= help: the `.` operator will automatically dereference the value, except if the value is a raw pointer
```
Improve diagnostics for pointer arithmetic += and -= (fixes#137391)
**Description**:
This PR improves the diagnostic message for cases where a binary assignment operation like `ptr += offset` or `ptr -= offset` is attempted on `*mut T`. These operations are not allowed, and the compiler previously suggested calling `.add()` or `.wrapping_add()`, which is misleading if not assigned.
This PR updates the diagnostics to suggest assigning the result of `.wrapping_add()` or `.wrapping_sub()` back to the pointer, e.g.:
**Examples**
For this code
```rust
let mut arr = [0u8; 10];
let mut ptr = arr.as_mut_ptr();
ptr += 2;
```
it will say:
```rust
10 | ptr += 2;
| ---^^^^^
| |
| cannot use `+=` on type `*mut u8`
|
help: consider replacing `ptr += offset` with `ptr = ptr.wrapping_add(offset)` or `ptr.add(offset)`
|
10 - ptr += 2;
10 + ptr = ptr.wrapping_add(2);
```
**Related issue**: #137391
cc `@nabijaczleweli` for context (issue author)
Construct OutputType using macro and print [=FILENAME] help info
Closes#139805
Use define_output_types to define variants of OutputType, as well as refactor all of its methods for clarity. This way no variant is missed when pattern matching or output help messages.
On top of that, I optimized for `emit` help messages.
r? ```@jieyouxu```
This commit adjusts feature implication of the RISC-V ISA for better
feature detection from the user perspective.
The main rule is:
If the feature A is a functional superset of the feature B (A ⊃ B),
A is to imply B, even if this implication is not on the manual.
Such implications (not directly referred in the ISA manual) are commented
as "A ⊃ B" which means "A is a (functional) superset of B".
1. Zbc → Zbkc (add as a superset)
The Zbkc extension is a subset of the Zbc extension
(Zbc - "clmulr" instruction == Zbkc)
2. Zkr → (nothing) (remove dependency to Zicsr)
Implication to the Zicsr extension is removed because (although nearly
harmless), the Zkr extension (or the "seed" CSR section) defines its own
subset of the Zicsr extension.
3. Zvbb → Zvkb (comment as a superset)
This implication was already there but not denoted as a functional
superset. This commit adds the comment.
4. Zvfh → Zvfhmin (comment as a superset)
This is similar to the case above (Zvbb → Zvkb).
5. Zvfh → Zve32f (add implication per the ISA specification)
This dependency is on the ISA manual but was missing (due to the fact
that Zvfh indirectly implies Zve32f on the current implementation
through Zvfh → Zvfhmin, which is a functional relation).
This commit ensures that this is *also* ISA-compliant in the
source code level (there's no functional changes though).
6. Zvknhb → Zvknha (add as a superset)
The Zvknhb extension (SHA-256 / SHA-512) is a functional superset of
the Zvknha extension (SHA-256 only).
Remove `token::{Open,Close}Delim`
By replacing them with `{Open,Close}{Param,Brace,Bracket,Invisible}`.
PR #137902 made `ast::TokenKind` more like `lexer::TokenKind` by
replacing the compound `BinOp{,Eq}(BinOpToken)` variants with fieldless
variants `Plus`, `Minus`, `Star`, etc. This commit does a similar thing
with delimiters. It also makes `ast::TokenKind` more similar to
`parser::TokenType`.
This requires a few new methods:
- `TokenKind::is_{,open_,close_}delim()` replace various kinds of
pattern matches.
- `Delimiter::as_{open,close}_token_kind` are used to convert
`Delimiter` values to `TokenKind`.
Despite these additions, it's a net reduction in lines of code. This is
because e.g. `token::OpenParen` is so much shorter than
`token::OpenDelim(Delimiter::Parenthesis)` that many multi-line forms
reduce to single line forms. And many places where the number of lines
doesn't change are still easier to read, just because the names are
shorter, e.g.:
```
- } else if self.token != token::CloseDelim(Delimiter::Brace) {
+ } else if self.token != token::CloseBrace {
```
r? `@petrochenkov`
Currently the graphviz code does a `results.visit_with` call while also
holding a `ResultsCursor` on the `results`. That is both kinds of
results traversals at the same time, which is awkward. This commit moves
the `results.visit_with` part earlier so the two results traversals
don't overlap.
Fix error when an intra doc link is trying to resolve an empty associated item
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140026.
Assigning ```@nnethercote``` since they're the one who wrote the initial change.
I updated rustdoc code instead of compiler's because I think it makes more sense that the caller ensures on their side that the name they're looking for isn't empty.
r? ```@nnethercote```
Stabilize `naked_functions`
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
request for stabilization on tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957#issuecomment-2539270352
reference PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1689
# Request for Stabilization
Two years later, we're ready to try this again. Even though this issue is already marked as having passed FCP, given the amount of time that has passed and the changes in implementation strategy, we should follow the process again.
## Summary
The `naked_functions` feature has two main parts: the `#[naked]` function attribute, and the `naked_asm!` macro.
An example of a naked function:
```rust
const THREE: usize = 3;
#[naked]
pub extern "sysv64" fn add_n(number: usize) -> usize {
// SAFETY: the validity of the used registers
// is guaranteed according to the "sysv64" ABI
unsafe {
core::arch::naked_asm!(
"add rdi, {}",
"mov rax, rdi",
"ret",
const THREE,
)
}
}
```
When the `#[naked]` attribute is applied to a function, the compiler won't emit a [function prologue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_prologue_and_epilogue) or epilogue when generating code for this function. This attribute is analogous to [`__attribute__((naked))`](https://developer.arm.com/documentation/100067/0608/Compiler-specific-Function--Variable--and-Type-Attributes/--attribute----naked---function-attribute) in C. The use of this feature allows the programmer to have precise control over the assembly that is generated for a given function.
The body of a naked function must consist of a single `naked_asm!` invocation, a heavily restricted variant of the `asm!` macro: the only legal operands are `const` and `sym`, and the only legal options are `raw` and `att_syntax`. In lieu of specifying operands, the `naked_asm!` within a naked function relies on the function's calling convention to determine the validity of registers.
## Documentation
The Rust Reference: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1689
(Previous PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1153)
## Tests
* [tests/run-make/naked-symbol-visiblity](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn) verifies that `pub`, `#[no_mangle]` and `#[linkage = "..."]` work correctly for naked functions
* [tests/codegen/naked-fn](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn) has tests for function alignment, use of generics, and validates the exact assembly output on linux, macos, windows and thumb
* [tests/ui/asm/naked-*](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/tests/ui/asm) tests for incompatible attributes, generating errors around incorrect use of `naked_asm!`, etc
## Interaction with other (unstable) features
### [fn_align](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82232)
Combining `#[naked]` with `#[repr(align(N))]` works well, and is tested e.g. here
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn/aligned.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn/min-function-alignment.rs
It's tested extensively because we do need to explicitly support the `repr(align)` attribute (and make sure we e.g. don't mistake powers of two for number of bytes).
## History
This feature was originally proposed in [RFC 1201](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1201), filed on 2015-07-10 and accepted on 2016-03-21. Support for this feature was added in [#32410](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/32410), landing on 2016-03-23. Development languished for several years as it was realized that the semantics given in RFC 1201 were insufficiently specific. To address this, a minimal subset of naked functions was specified by [RFC 2972](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2972), filed on 2020-08-07 and accepted on 2021-11-16. Prior to the acceptance of RFC 2972, all of the stricter behavior specified by RFC 2972 was implemented as a series of warn-by-default lints that would trigger on existing uses of the `naked` attribute; these lints became hard errors in [#93153](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93153) on 2022-01-22. As a result, today RFC 2972 has completely superseded RFC 1201 in describing the semantics of the `naked` attribute.
More recently, the `naked_asm!` macro was added to replace the earlier use of a heavily restricted `asm!` invocation. The `naked_asm!` name is clearer in error messages, and provides a place for documenting the specific requirements of inline assembly in naked functions.
The implementation strategy was changed to emitting a global assembly block. In effect, an extern function
```rust
extern "C" fn foo() {
core::arch::naked_asm!("ret")
}
```
is emitted as something similar to
```rust
core::arch::global_asm!(
"foo:",
"ret"
);
extern "C" {
fn foo();
}
```
The codegen approach was chosen over the llvm naked function attribute because:
- the rust compiler can guarantee the behavior (no sneaky additional instructions, no inlining, etc.)
- behavior is the same on all backends (llvm, cranelift, gcc, etc)
Finally, there is now an allow list of compatible attributes on naked functions, so that e.g. `#[inline]` is rejected with an error. The `#[target_feature]` attribute on naked functions was later made separately unstable, because implementing it is complex and we did not want to block naked functions themselves on how target features work on them. See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138568.
relevant PRs for these recent changes
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127853
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128651
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128004
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138570
-
### Various historical notes
#### `noreturn`
[RFC 2972](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2972-constrained-naked.md) mentions that naked functions
> must have a body which contains only a single asm!() statement which:
> iii. must contain the noreturn option.
Instead of `asm!`, the current implementation mandates that the body contain a single `naked_asm!` statement. The `naked_asm!` macro is a heavily restricted version of the `asm!` macro, making it easier to talk about and document the rules of assembly in naked functions and give dedicated error messages.
For `naked_asm!`, the behavior of the `asm!`'s `noreturn` option is implicit. The `noreturn` option means that it is UB for control flow to fall through the end of the assembly block. With `asm!`, this option is usually used for blocks that diverge (and thus have no return and can be typed as `!`). With `naked_asm!`, the intent is different: usually naked funtions do return, but they must do so from within the assembly block. The `noreturn` option was used so that the compiler would not itself also insert a `ret` instruction at the very end.
#### padding / `ud2`
A `naked_asm!` block that violates the safety assumption that control flow must not fall through the end of the assembly block is UB. Because no return instruction is emitted, whatever bytes follow the naked function will be executed, resulting in truly undefined behavior. There has been discussion whether rustc should emit an invalid instruction (e.g. `ud2` on x86) after the `naked_asm!` block to at least fail early in the case of an invalid `naked_asm!`. It was however decided that it is more useful to guarantee that `#[naked]` functions NEVER contain any instructions besides those in the `naked_asm!` block.
# unresolved questions
None
r? ``@Amanieu``
I've validated the tests on x86_64 and aarch64
Don't ICE on pending obligations from deep normalization in a loop
See the comment I left inline in `compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/normalize.rs`.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133868
r? lcnr
Instead of `ResultsCursor`.
This partly undoes the second commit from #132346; possible because
`Results::as_result_cursor` (which doesn't consume the `Results`) is now
available. Delaying the `ResultsCursor` construction will facilitate the
next couple of commits.
By replacing them with `{Open,Close}{Param,Brace,Bracket,Invisible}`.
PR #137902 made `ast::TokenKind` more like `lexer::TokenKind` by
replacing the compound `BinOp{,Eq}(BinOpToken)` variants with fieldless
variants `Plus`, `Minus`, `Star`, etc. This commit does a similar thing
with delimiters. It also makes `ast::TokenKind` more similar to
`parser::TokenType`.
This requires a few new methods:
- `TokenKind::is_{,open_,close_}delim()` replace various kinds of
pattern matches.
- `Delimiter::as_{open,close}_token_kind` are used to convert
`Delimiter` values to `TokenKind`.
Despite these additions, it's a net reduction in lines of code. This is
because e.g. `token::OpenParen` is so much shorter than
`token::OpenDelim(Delimiter::Parenthesis)` that many multi-line forms
reduce to single line forms. And many places where the number of lines
doesn't change are still easier to read, just because the names are
shorter, e.g.:
```
- } else if self.token != token::CloseDelim(Delimiter::Brace) {
+ } else if self.token != token::CloseBrace {
```
transmutability: remove NFA intermediate representation
Prior to this commit, the transmutability analysis used an intermediate NFA representation of type layout. We then determinized this representation into a DFA, upon which we ran the core transmutability analysis. Unfortunately, determinizing NFAs is expensive. In this commit, we avoid NFAs entirely by observing that Rust `union`s are the only source of nondeterminism and that it is comparatively cheap to compute the DFA union of DFAs.
We also implement Graphviz DOT debug formatting of DFAs.
Fixesrust-lang/project-safe-transmute#23Fixesrust-lang/project-safe-transmute#24
r? ``@compiler-errors``
simd intrinsics with mask: accept unsigned integer masks, and fix some of the errors
It's not clear at all why the mask would have to be signed, it is anyway interpreted bitwise. The backend should just make sure that works no matter the surface-level type; our LLVM backend already does this correctly. The note of "the mask may be widened, which only has the correct behavior for signed integers" explains... nothing? Why can't the code do the widening correctly? If necessary, just cast to the signed type first...
Also while we are at it, fix the errors. For simd_masked_load/store, the errors talked about the "third argument" but they meant the first argument (the mask is the first argument there). They also used the wrong type for `expected_element`.
I have extremely low confidence in the GCC part of this PR.
See [discussion on Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/257879-project-portable-simd/topic/On.20the.20sign.20of.20masks)
