Async drop poll shim for error dropee generates noop body
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140930.
When dropee type for async drop poll shim is `ty::Error(_)`, the generated poll function will be noop body. To avoid ICE in `elaborate_drop`.
the size of `AsyncStruct`'s destructor depends on whether the configured
panic strategy is 'unwind' or 'abort' so factor that into the test using
conditional compilation
fixesrust-lang/rust#140939
Do not compute type_of for impl item if impl where clauses are unsatisfied
Consider the following code:
```rust
trait Foo {
fn call(self) -> impl Send;
}
trait Nested {}
impl<T> Foo for T
where
T: Nested,
{
fn call(self) -> impl Sized {
NotSatisfied.call()
}
}
struct NotSatisfied;
impl Foo for NotSatisfied {
fn call(self) -> impl Sized {
todo!()
}
}
```
In `impl Foo for NotSatisfied`, we need to prove that the RPITIT is well formed. This requires proving the item bound `<NotSatisfied as Foo>::RPITIT: Send`. Normalizing `<NotSatisfied as Foo>::RPITIT: Send` assembles two impl candidates, via the `NotSatisfied` impl and the blanket `T` impl. We end up computing the `type_of` for the blanket impl even if `NotSatisfied: Nested` where clause does not hold.
This type_of query ends up needing to prove that its own `impl Sized` RPIT satisfies `Send`, which ends up needing to compute the hidden type of the RPIT, which is equal to the return type of `NotSatisfied.call()`. That ends up in a query cycle, since we subsequently try normalizing that return type via the blanket impl again!
In the old solver, we don't end up computing the `type_of` an impl candidate if its where clauses don't hold, since this select call would fail before confirming the projection candidate:
d7ea436a02/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/project.rs (L882)
This PR makes the new solver more consistent with the old solver by adding a call to `try_evaluate_added_goals` after regstering the impl predicates, which causes us to bail before computing the `type_of` for impls if the impl definitely doesn't apply.
r? lcnr
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/185
Simply try to unpeel AsyncFnKindHelper goal in `emit_specialized_closure_kind_error`
Tweak the handling of `AsyncFnKindHelper` goals in `emit_specialized_closure_kind_error` to not be so special-casey, and just try to unpeel one or two layers of obligation causes to get to their underlying `AsyncFn*` goal.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140292
Implement `pin!()` using `super let`
Tracking issue for super let: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076
This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.
This means we can remove [the hack](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138717) we had to put in to fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138596.
It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.
While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.
It'd help [the experiment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals`
Closes#131204
`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated
This will end up conflicting with the test in #138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating
--
# Stabilization Report
## General design
### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?
[RFC 3695](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695), none.
### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.
None
### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?
None
## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?
Yes; only positive feedback was received.
## Implementation quality
### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)
Implemented in [#131034](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131034).
### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature
- [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs)
- [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs)
- [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs)
- [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs)
- Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs`
- Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs`
### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?
The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature.
### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?
None
### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
- `@clubby789` (RFC)
- `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc)
### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?
`rustdoc`'s unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized.
## Type system and execution rules
### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)
A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.
compiletest: Make `SUGGESTION` annotations viral
If one of them is expected in a test file, then others should be annotated as well, in the same way as with `HELP`s and `NOTE`s.
This doesn't require much of an additional annotation burden, but simplifies the rules.
r? ```@jieyouxu```
UI tests: add missing diagnostic kinds where possible
The subset of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139427 that only adds diagnostic kinds to line annotations, without changing any other things in annotations or compiletest.
After this only non-viral `NOTE`s and `HELP`s should be missing.
r? `@jieyouxu`
Improve error message for `AsyncFn` trait failure for RPIT
Use a `WellFormedDerived` obligation cause to make sure we can turn an `AsyncFnKindHelper` trait goal into its parent `AsyncFn*` goal, then fix the logic for reporting `AsyncFn*` kind mismatches.
Best reviewed without whitespace.
Fixes#137905
r? oli-obk
When a `?` operation requires an `Into` conversion with additional bounds (like having a concrete error but wanting to convert to a trait object), we handle it speficically and provide the same kind of information we give other `?` related errors.
```
error[E0277]: `?` couldn't convert the error: `E: std::error::Error` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/bad-question-mark-on-trait-object.rs:5:13
|
LL | fn foo() -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
| -------------------------------------- required `E: std::error::Error` because of this
LL | Ok(bar()?)
| ^ the trait `std::error::Error` is not implemented for `E`
|
= note: the question mark operation (`?`) implicitly performs a conversion on the error value using the `From` trait
= note: required for `Box<dyn std::error::Error>` to implement `From<E>`
```
Avoid talking about `FromResidual` when other more relevant information is being given, particularly from `rust_on_unimplemented`.
Stabilize target_feature_11
# Stabilization report
This is an updated version of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116114, which is itself a redo of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99767. Most of this commit and report were copied from those PRs. Thanks ```@LeSeulArtichaut``` and ```@calebzulawski!```
## Summary
Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes.
Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot *generally* be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits.
However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe.
```rust
// Demonstration function
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn avx2() {}
fn foo() {
// Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure
// that AVX is available first.
unsafe {
avx2();
}
}
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn bar() {
// Calling `avx2` here is safe.
avx2();
}
```
Moreover, once https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135504 is merged, they can be converted to safe function pointers in a context in which calling them is safe:
```rust
// Demonstration function
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn avx2() {}
fn foo() -> fn() {
// Converting `avx2` to fn() is a compilation error here.
avx2
}
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn bar() -> fn() {
// `avx2` coerces to fn() here
avx2
}
```
See the section "Closures" below for justification of this behaviour.
## Test cases
Tests for this feature can be found in [`tests/ui/target_feature/`](f6cb952dc1/tests/ui/target-feature).
## Edge cases
### Closures
* [target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? #73631](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73631)
Closures defined inside functions marked with #[target_feature] inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits.
```rust
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn qux() {
let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe
let f: fn() = my_closure;
}
```
This means that in order to call a function with #[target_feature], you must guarantee that the target-feature is available while the function, any closures defined inside it, as well as any safe function pointers obtained from target-feature functions inside it, execute.
This is usually ensured because target features are assumed to never disappear, and:
- on any unsafe call to a `#[target_feature]` function, presence of the target feature is guaranteed by the programmer through the safety requirements of the unsafe call.
- on any safe call, this is guaranteed recursively by the caller.
If you work in an environment where target features can be disabled, it is your responsibility to ensure that no code inside a target feature function (including inside a closure) runs after this (until the feature is enabled again).
**Note:** this has an effect on existing code, as nowadays closures do not inherit features from the enclosing function, and thus this strengthens a safety requirement. It was originally proposed in #73631 to solve this by adding a new type of UB: “taking a target feature away from your process after having run code that uses that target feature is UB” .
This was motivated by userspace code already assuming in a few places that CPU features never disappear from a program during execution (see i.e. 2e29bdf908/crates/std_detect/src/detect/arch/x86.rs); however, concerns were raised in the context of the Linux kernel; thus, we propose to relax that requirement to "causing the set of usable features to be reduced is unsafe; when doing so, the programmer is required to ensure that no closures or safe fn pointers that use removed features are still in scope".
* [Fix #[inline(always)] on closures with target feature 1.1 #111836](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111836)
Closures accept `#[inline(always)]`, even within functions marked with `#[target_feature]`. Since these attributes conflict, `#[inline(always)]` wins out to maintain compatibility.
### ABI concerns
* [The extern "C" ABI of SIMD vector types depends on target features #116558](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116558)
The ABI of some types can change when compiling a function with different target features. This could have introduced unsoundness with target_feature_11, but recent fixes (#133102, #132173) either make those situations invalid or make the ABI no longer dependent on features. Thus, those issues should no longer occur.
### Special functions
The `#[target_feature]` attribute is forbidden from a variety of special functions, such as main, current and future lang items (e.g. `#[start]`, `#[panic_handler]`), safe default trait implementations and safe trait methods.
This was not disallowed at the time of the first stabilization PR for target_features_11, and resulted in the following issues/PRs:
* [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on `main` #108645](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108645)
* [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on default implementations #108646](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108646)
* [#[target_feature] is allowed on #[panic_handler] with target_feature 1.1 #109411](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/109411)
* [Prevent using `#[target_feature]` on lang item functions #115910](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115910)
## Documentation
* Reference: [Document the `target_feature_11` feature reference#1181](https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1181)
---
cc tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69098
cc ```@workingjubilee```
cc ```@RalfJung```
r? ```@rust-lang/lang```
```
error[E0610]: `{integer}` is a primitive type and therefore doesn't have fields
--> $DIR/attempted-access-non-fatal.rs:7:15
|
LL | let _ = 2.l;
| ^
|
help: if intended to be a floating point literal, consider adding a `0` after the period and a `f64` suffix
|
LL - let _ = 2.l;
LL + let _ = 2.0f64;
|
```
